Royal Assent

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act,
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act.

Strategic Defence Review

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in implementing the Strategic Defence Review, particularly in respect of the capability to engage in expeditionary warfare on land.

Lord Bach: My Lords, since 1998 we have implemented over two-thirds of the key Strategic Defence Review (SDR) measures. We have made good progress towards more flexible and rapidly deployable expeditionary forces. The New Chapter work built on the Strategic Defence Review. It looked at countering international terrorism and asymmetric attack, and at building network-enabled capability. Our Armed Forces will need to continue to evolve to meet the needs of the 21st century. Next year's defence White Paper will set out how we plan to take this forward.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. In so doing, I remind the House that I have an interest in this area. The SDR is a very detailed, and, indeed, a very good defence plan. However, can the Minister say what progress is being made as regards the detail? For example, what progress is he making in establishing—and, most importantly, equipping—a Royal Logistics Corps water transport squadron?

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bach: My Lords, noble Lords seem to think that I do not know the answer to the noble Earl's question, but I do.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Bach: My Lords, we are in the process of procuring a new fleet of water tankers and fuel tankers. If the noble Earl will be patient, a decision will be made very soon. By 2004, that fleet of tankers will provide highly capable and reliable capability. Before then, prudent contingency planning will ensure that we have sufficient off-road fuel carrying capability to meet any likely operational requirements.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the SDR expeditionary strategy relies heavily on aircraft carriers. In view of HMS "Ocean" being in refit for the foreseeable future, can the noble Lord say what measures the Government are taking to ensure that aircraft carriers are available?

Lord Bach: My Lords, aircraft carriers will be available if they are needed. There is no question of any shortage in that field. As the noble Lord will know, by 21st January of next year we intend to choose which of two competing companies will be responsible for the construction of two new aircraft carriers that emerge straight out of the Strategic Defence Review, the first one of which we hope will sail in 2012.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell the House to what extent the Defence Medical Services will be able to meet the possible challenges of the coming months?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have acknowledged the manning and equipment shortfalls in the DMS, and are addressing those matters. We are committed to manning the services fully. Recruitment into training is generally satisfactory. Retention of experienced personnel is the main problem facing the DMS. Improved retention is the key element in our plans. We recognise that both financial and non-financial measures have a part to play in the process. Up until now, the Defence Medical Services have met all the operational commitments placed upon them. I am sure that they will continue to do so in the future.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the current position in the Ministry of Defence regarding the sustainability of a force for a longish period of duty in the field? Is it not a fact that we are short of medium and heavy lift? Further, can the noble Lord say what we are doing—and, if so, where—about training the Armed Forces for war?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that the capability and sustainability of UK Armed Forces to engage in expeditionary warfare on land was demonstrated most successfully during Exercise Saif Sareea II last year, as well as in operations in recent years; for example, in the Balkans, in East Timor, in Sierra Leone, and in and around Afghanistan. I can tell the House that the strategic sealift service will provide six ro-ro vessels for routine freighting, three of which are already in service with a fourth being not far away from that stage. As for strategic airlifts, as the noble Viscount will know, pending the introduction of the A400M aircraft we have leased four C17 aircraft that are doing a fine job.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister advise the House what part it is intended that the British Armed Forces will play in the 25,000 strong NATO rapid reaction force?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we have led the ambitions for such a force. We have played an important role in ensuring that such a force becomes a central part of NATO policy. It follows, therefore, that we shall play an important part in such a force.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the event—

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that there has been a Conservative questioner since the original Question was put.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that ships are being chartered in readiness to take troops to the Gulf, and that tanks are being prepared for desert warfare?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first question, I cannot confirm, "or otherwise". The answer to his second question is, yes. It is true that work is being carried out on the Challenger 2 tank as we speak.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in the event of a major conflict, to what extent will the Defence Medical Services be dependent on reserve personnel called up from the Territorial Army? What effect is that likely to have on an understaffed National Health Service?

Lord Bach: My Lords, if a medium-scale war-fighting force were needed to be deployed on operations, the Defence Medical Services would need to call out reservists in order to meet the operational commitment. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, that is currently a matter for discussion between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Lord said that tanks are being prepared. How many tanks actually are prepared?

Lord Bach: Enough, my Lords.

NHS: Staffing

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they intend to take to recover the staff who have been persuaded to leave the National Health Service to join the private healthcare sector.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are implementing a range of measures to improve the recruitment, retention and return of staff in the NHS, including improved pay, more flexible and supportive family working conditions, greater access to childcare and more training.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Did he see the newspaper report of 27th November on the Secretary of State's speech to the CBI? It states that the Secretary of State said that,
	"when the Civil Service did find someone with the right skills and experience for negotiating . . . he was frequently poached by the private sector".
	Does the Minister think that anything can be done to improve the return of private dentists, for example, who went private because they could no longer continue in the health service?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Generally, my Lords, in most of the professions, we are not aware of overt poaching by the private sector from the National Health Service. However, I am well aware of the issues which the noble Baroness raises in relation to dentists. I think that the number of dentists with GDS contracts with the NHS has in fact increased, although the amount that each does has probably decreased. I believe that the solution lies in the discussions between the department and the profession to look at the current contract and get dentists off what they feel is the treadmill of NHS work. We seek to give them a more rewarding career in NHS dentistry, and we are very keen to work with the profession on that.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, attracting professionals back from the private sector is often a matter of attracting them after they have brought up a family. How successful has the Government's campaign, launched in January 2001, been in bringing more midwives back to the NHS?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, midwives are a very important group, and we certainly expect them to benefit from the initiatives we have introduced to encourage a return to practice. Those initiatives include flexible working practices, family-friendly working policies, and access to further continuing professional development—an important component in ensuring that midwives feel that the NHS is a place where they want to work.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that one of the areas of difficulty is over agency nurses? Many nurses are attracted away from the NHS to work for agencies where pay is higher. Does he agree that the reason for that is very often the mismatch between the NHS nursing establishment and the actual need for nurses in a given hospital? For example, if the nursing establishment is calculated on the basis of 85 per cent bed occupancy, but the hospital is actually experiencing 98 per cent bed occupancy, there is immediately created a market for agency nurses. Is it possible that the bed occupancy rate can be recalculated so that the NHS nursing establishment is adequate for what is needed in a particular hospital?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt about it: one of the key challenges facing us is to increase our capacity to deal with the patients whom we need to treat, and recruiting more staff is a very important part of that process. It is worth pointing out that, from 1997 to 2002, we increased the number of nurses working in the health service by nearly 40,000, a very important achievement. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we need to reduce our dependence on agency nurses. That is why we have launched a new scheme called NHS Professionals in which we offer NHS employment conditions to staff wishing to be employed flexibly. The scheme is starting to get a grip on the issue within the health service, and I hope that, as it develops, we will indeed reduce our dependence on agency nurses and the costs accruing from that dependence.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, on the matter of flexible working practices, is consideration being given to encouraging nurses, for example, to work in both the secondary and the primary care settings and in community-based activities?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. As the role of nurses in the community has developed over the years, evidence has shown that a number of experienced nurses from the hospital sector have gone into nursing in the community, and vice versa. We should certainly encourage that. I also believe that the development of nurse consultant posts, which reward nurses for staying in clinical leadership and practice, is another way of enhancing the profession and making it attractive to nurses with a lot to give but who do not wish to go into management.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, sometimes, especially at night, very young qualified nurses are put in a position of great responsibility although they feel that that is too much for them and that, subsequently, some of them throw in their hand? Will he also tell us what has happened about the sisters and the matrons he promised?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point out that we depend very much on nurses, often on newly trained nurses, and that they face many pressures. I do not think that there is any doubt about that. The long-term answer is to increase the number of nurses employed within the National Health Service. That would result in more nurses on the wards. Student and newly qualified nurses could then look to more experienced nurses for advice, management and skilled leadership to make them less vulnerable. In the mean time, we are redoubling our efforts to ensure that newly qualified nurses in particular are given appropriate supervision. We are keen to see the development of the concept of modern matrons, which involves giving nurses back the authority that they have lost over the past 20 years. The more authority a nurse has on a ward, the better that ward will be run.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when will the Government start to look at health provision in the round? Does it really matter whether health provision comes from the private sector or the public sector? The Minister has been talking about attracting nurses and, to an extent, consultants back into the National Health Service from the private sector.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have set up workforce development confederations at local level to consider the needs of the health service in terms of how many people need to be trained to meet future requirements. The workforce confederations also take into account the likely demand from the private sector. I agree with the substance of the point that the noble Lord raises; namely, that if you consider a local healthcare system in the round, you need to consider the contribution that the private sector makes bearing in mind that the NHS purchases about 7.5 per cent of all the work undertaken in the private healthcare acute sector at the moment and that, in the area of long-term care, nursing homes and residential homes have a critical bearing on our ability to discharge patients from hospital when they no longer need treatment.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, what is being done to clear the backlog of medical trainees who apply for flexible training posts but are currently told that there is no funding for flexible training and that therefore they either have to work full time or take a career break and in so doing are lost to the service?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, our aim is to have up to 1,000 doctors on a flexible career scheme by 2004. I was not aware of the problems raised by the noble Baroness but I should be happy to look into the matter.

Overseas Hauliers: Charges

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on the introduction of a carnet system for foreign hauliers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the 2001 Labour Manifesto made a commitment to,
	"ensure that hauliers from overseas pay their fair share towards the cost of our roads".
	In the 2001 Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor gave a commitment that the UK haulage industry would not pay any more as a result of the introduction of a charge and consulted on options to deliver that commitment.
	In Budget 2002 the Chancellor announced that the Government aimed to introduce a distance-based lorry road user charge in 2005 or 2006. Since the Budget, detailed work has been undertaken on how to administer and procure the charging systems. The recent Pre-Budget Report announced that the Government will publish a second progress report early next year.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he indicate whether the charge to be paid by foreign hauliers will correspond to the road user charge and the environmental charge that should be levied on a typical five-wheeled vehicle? If that is not the case, why will they be charged less?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the amount to be charged is the most urgent priority. In consultation with the industry we have chosen probably the most technically advanced but the best scheme which comprises a distance-based charging scheme rather than a time-based charging scheme. It requires satellite technology. The technological aspects of the scheme are being studied and will be reported on again soon. Questions regarding the amount of the charge will properly follow from that.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate whether any discussions have taken place on the issue with the European Commission and, if not, why not?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, discussions certainly have taken place with the European Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knows, the European Commission has issued a directive on the Euro vignette system but at the moment that applies only to motorways. We are keen for a charging scheme to be extended. Germany and Austria are already working on that and we are in close contact with them on the matter.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the House should welcome the fact that the new carnet system for foreign lorries will be based on distance travelled. But how will it promote fair competition vis-a-vis British hauliers whose payment through tax, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty or whatever is based not on distance travelled but largely on a lump sum per annum?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, fuel duties are based on distance: the more you travel, the more fuel you use. In that sense, the new system will be directly comparable. What we said, and what we shall stick to, is that there will not be any additional charge for the UK haulage industry. I am not saying that it is certain that the rebates, in effect, to the UK haulage industry will take the form of reduced fuel duty but that certainly seems the most likely possibility.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. The Minister referred to road user charging and satellite technology. Why cannot we just extract the necessary data from the new digital tachographs being introduced in the haulage fleet?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that has been assessed as tachographs could be enforced as regards foreign vehicles travelling to this country. However, there is a difficulty as regards potential fraud. For that reason we publicly committed ourselves to a satellite-based system even though we are aware that it will take longer to introduce.

Lord Methuen: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a satellite-based system. To what extent will it conform to international standards?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand to which international standards the noble Lord refers. I shall have to discuss the matter with him and then write to him rather than attempt to reply now.

Postal Services and Competition

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their view on Postcomm's recent proposals to open up the United Kingdom postal market to competition.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the European Postal Services Directive requires that the level of services that may be reserved will reduce to 100 grams in 2003 and to 50 grams in 2006, leaving the final step to a decision in 2006. Postcomm also has a primary duty under the Postal Services Act 2000 to ensure the provision of a universal postal service and, subject to that duty, to further the interests of users by promoting competition. In line with those obligations, and after consultation, Postcomm has published its market opening strategy.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the fears expressed by Royal Mail about the Postcomm proposals; namely, that even if there is an increase in postal charges for letters there will still be a black hole of £463 million in its finances? Is that not putting at risk part of our heritage; that is, the delivery of a letter anywhere in the UK at the same price?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as everyone knows, Postcomm was established by the Postal Services Act 2000 as an independent regulator to make decisions on price increases. I remind my noble friend that its primary duty is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service and, subject to that duty, to further the interests of consumers by promoting competition. Having taken the Government out of decisions about price increases, it makes no sense for the Government to second guess Postcomm or to comment on the underlying cost structure of the decisions that it takes.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although it is not good for the Government to second guess something they have given to someone else, they have a responsibility in relation to pricing policies directed by Postcomm? Will he take from me the assurance that a universal postal service cannot succeed unless Postcomm is brought back under control? Given that Postcomm commissioners are meeting on Thursday, will he take the opportunity to remind them of their responsibility to the Royal Mail, the public and staff? Instead, they give the impression to all and sundry that their only interest is to open the Post Office business to predators who are waiting like vultures to get into the Post Office network? I should declare my interest as a former postman.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that I do agree. The obligation to consider price increases lies firmly with Postcomm. I remind the House again that its primary duty is to ensure the viability of the universal postal service. Its market opening proposals are entirely in line with that obligation.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister has repeated once or twice his remark about the primary duty of Postcomm and has referred to the universal postal service. Does he not agree that the Post Office may disappear altogether, given that there is no longer a level playing field? That would not create the competition that the Government wanted when they introduced the relevant legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, referred to the competitors who are waiting to come in as "predators". I am not saying that; I would call them "competitors", because we all want competition so long as it does not knock out the Post Office. Will international competitors offer the same opportunity to the Post Office to operate in their countries, if it should so wish?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall deal directly with that question because it is of interest. Three licences have been given so far: to TPG, which is the Netherlands post office, to Deutsche Post, which is the German one, and to Hayes Commercial Services Ltd. The Netherlands and Germany both have liberalised markets for postal services. In this case, as one would expect, international competition is coming not from markets that have been protected but ones that have been liberalised. Both the Netherlands and Germany have considerable liberalisation but, interestingly, in both cases the main Post Office has retained a very large share of the market.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the increased revenue that will accrue to the Post Office from the penny increase in stamp prices is being undermined by all the changes proposed by Postcomm? Does he agree with Alan Leighton, chairman of the Royal Mail, who described the package as the regulator giving with one hand and grabbing even more back with the other? That is regulation gone mad.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I simply reiterate that it is the job of Postcomm to make those decisions. We have a duty to open up and liberalise our markets. It is Postcomm's job to decide what price increases are reasonable, and it has done so based on the facts and after lengthy consultation.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in an integrated Europe, there must be a case to be made for a universal postal system in the European Union? What is the Government's view on that?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always interesting to see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as ever, promoting the cause of an integrated Europe. No doubt when the federal government, about which he is so concerned, takes place, that will be one of the first things on their agenda. The Government fully support competition between national postal organisations, which we believe will be healthy for the consumer.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend take back the comments made in this House that the Postcomm proposals appear to put at risk the universal postal service? That is a strong fear expressed on all sides of the House.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Postcomm was established by the Postal Services Act 2000. It is an independent regulator, has statutory duties and, like other regulators, can be held to account by Parliament via a Select Committee. If it is felt that it is not discharging its duties, that is the action that should be taken.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether the proportion of first-class letters being delivered the next day is going up or down? In my experience, it is getting worse and worse. I am not sure how the new liberalisation will help that.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the usual things that follows from more competition is an increase in the quality of service. I shall write to my noble friend with the most recent figures.

Financial Services Authority

Lord Newby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the departure of Sir Howard Davies, they plan to split the roles of chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Financial Services Authority's governance structure and how it accounts for its performance reflect its unusual status as a private company with no shareholders. These arrangements were approved by Parliament after extensive debate. The Government had, and continue to have, confidence in the FSA's governance and accountability mechanisms, including its existing board structure. We agreed to review the position in response to the Cruickshank report, and will do so now when we appoint a successor to Sir Howard Davies.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, I hope he accepts that the bulk of informed opinion, whether from the City, the media or elsewhere, strongly supports the argument for splitting the roles of chairman and chief executive of the FSA, given that body's wide powers. I urge him to ask his right honourable friend the Chancellor to take an early decision on the matter—frankly, it is not all that difficult—before proceeding quickly to make the appropriate appointments to avoid any uncertainty about the future direction and management of the FSA.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, says about informed City opinion. However, even when informed City opinion agrees with the noble Lord—and I am not committed on that point—it is not always right. I can assure the noble Lord that arrangements will be made for a successor to be appointed to Sir Howard Davies in good time before he leaves his post to start at the London School of Economics on 1st October next year.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in the light of the Financial Times article entitled "Howard's way needs to divide", of the discussions in this House on the Enterprise Bill in which the settled view was that the Competition Commission should have a chairman and chief executive, and of the Government's own Strategy Unit on a review of charities recommending that the chairman and chief executive should be separated, is it not time for the Government to say "Yes" to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newby?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Government were going to say "Yes", they would not leave it to me to make the announcement to Parliament. Someone more important would do it. The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is "No". He refers to a "settled view" about the chairmanship and chief executive, although he should have referred to the Office of Fair Trading, not to the Competition Commission. We were defeated in a vote on the Enterprise Bill, but we won in a vote on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Parliament has therefore taken the view that the posts should be combined. I repeat that we have undertaken to review the matter when we appoint a successor to Sir Howard Davies, and we shall do so.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister realise that when he uses the phrase "a successor", in the singular, he begs the question raised by my noble friend Lord Newby?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is of course right. I should have said, "a successor or successors".

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, what are the reasons for placing the increased workload on the shoulders of the FSA and its chief executive? Does the Minister include over-regulation among those reasons?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Parliament gave the FSA a series of very demanding tasks. It is true that the FSA is one of the most wide-ranging regulatory systems for a financial services industry in the world. It is also true that by regulation it has been decided that the scope of the FSA will be increased twofold by the inclusion of the mortgage industry and general insurance. Yes, the size of the FSA has gone up considerably. It is of course a matter for Sir Howard Davies, his colleagues and his board to decide what effect that has on the workload of any one individual.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, although the Minister talks of extensive consultation on, and discussion about, combining the roles during the passage of the financial services legislation, does he agree that there was also much concern? Bearing in mind that several heads of regulatory bodies report to it, what message does continuing to combine the roles of chairman and chief executive in the FSA send to the rest of British companies, which are under strong guidance to split those roles?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I indicated in my first Answer the difference between the FSA and the private sector. In the private sector, it is widely agreed that to split the role of chairman and chief executive is correct because the interests of shareholders must be considered. It is generally thought that a non-executive chairman can fulfil that role. With the FSA there are of course no shareholders. Nothing that I have said should indicate that there is a settled view among Treasury Ministers that we will continue to combine the roles of chairman and chief executive. We said that we will review the matter and we will do so.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister mind the following summary of his answers? Yesterday, he said that the Government would not conform with generally accepted accounting principles and today he says that the Government will not conform with generally accepted governnance principles. That is not a model of compliance, is it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yesterday, I said the exact opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, suggests. Yesterday, I said that the Government do conform with generally accepted accounting practice. Therefore the second part of his question does not arise.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the post of director of the London School of Economics, to which Sir Howard Davies is moving, is carefully balanced by that of the chairman of the court of governors? Does the noble Lord believe that the Government may want to take account of that model when considering Sir Howard's successors?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, far be it from me to intervene in the governance of the London School of Economics. No, I do not believe that there is any particular analogy between the two posts. I shall be interested to have Sir Howard's views on this matter in a few years' time.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we will have two repeated Statements this afternoon. The first, from my noble friend Lady Hollis, will be on occupational and private pensions and the second, when my noble friend Lord McIntosh will again be on his feet, will be on the transport investment plan. In order for the two Statements to run consecutively and so as to ensure that the Commons have finished their first Statement before we try to start our second—I am sure that that makes sense and is precise enough—we anticipate that the Statements will begin at four o'clock.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brabazon of Tara) in the Chair.]
	Clause 3 [Licensing authorities]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 3, line 1, at end insert—
	"( ) for purposes of personal licences, the central licensing authority"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 379, 381 and 404.
	I begin by putting at rest a few minds in the wider world. This group of amendments relates solely to the administering of personal licences. I stress that because I understand that a frenzy of concern has spread among local authorities and others, who believe, as we do, in local democracy and accountability, that it is Her Majesty's Opposition who wish to centralise the administration of the whole licensing system. Not at all. The premises licences would be within the control of local authorities, unless Clause 8(6) is particularly sinister. However, the administration of personal licences would, we believe, be more sensibly managed by a central system, as was envisaged in the White Paper.
	One of the features of individuals who may apply for personal licences is that they can move from place to place. A person may be born in Newcastle but may move to Bournemouth. However, under the Bill, if that person has been granted a personal licence by the local authority in Newcastle and wishes to renew his personal licence, he must apply to the local authority in Newcastle, not that in Bournemouth. The local authority in Newcastle may well have lost touch with this individual and know nothing about him. The chief officer of police in Newcastle may know nothing about that individual but he, not the chief officer of police in Bournemouth, must be notified of the application for the renewal. In other words, the wrong police officer, in our view, is being consulted. The problem arises because of the curious requirement that an application for the renewal of a personal licence must be made to the original licensing authority that granted the personal licence. That makes no sense whatever because the licensing authority that granted the personal licence in the first place and the chief officer of police in that area may have no knowledge of the individual concerned.
	We believe that the better solution is for applications to be made to some central authority, such as the Secretary of State herself. She will of course delegate those tasks to officers within her department but it is important there is some central authority that grants those licences in much the same way as driving licences. The Secretary of State can then consult the chief officer of police in the area in which the applicant ordinarily resides.
	The desirability of having a central authority to deal with personal licences has been widely recognised by the industry, police and local authorities. For example, the expenses that local authorities will incur when they undertake the role of licensing authority are already considerable. The setting up of an independent central authority would ease pressure on them as well as providing a more secure and accountable system for the granting of personal licences. The White Paper looked for a central register of licensees. The Bill, however, expects local authorities to administer personal licences, once granted by them throughout their duration, irrespective of where that person subsequently lives and works. Will the Government explain why, when they have been consistently lobbied on this issue and the point seems to me to be only common sense, they have failed to incorporate it into the Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I rise to support the amendments and to speak to Amendment No. 67, to which my name is attached. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, outlined some of our problems with spreading personal licensing authorities among the 400 local authorities. The White Paper appeared to contain a sensible solution. Will the Minister explain exactly why the change was made? We see a number of problems with the move to local authorities. There are 400 authorities. Each would have to set up its own computer software to run the system. I realise that they will need to do that with premises licences, but to implement the system for personal licences they will have to design and man the software.
	The provision gives the impression that one piece of software would be provided to local authorities. I am not aware of that happening. If local authorities are setting up their own software, there then arises a large question of compatibility, not with other local authority software because they will have to be compatible, but with the police computer software. I do not see how, under this proposal, there will be a linkage between the software used by the local authorities and the police register. All this information will have to be checked with the police in order for licensees to be granted personal licences in the time-scale set out.
	There are further problems. It is not an extremely large job for a central register. We have calculated that between 300,000 and 400,000 personal licences would be issued. The original issue of that number of licences is a large job. After that it will be an ongoing process with few applications per week, which could be handled quite easily by a central registry. It will not take a vast amount of computer software. In fact, a scheme such as this could be run on a normal-sized PC.
	However, we are very concerned about the costs to local authorities. Software developed to deal with public entertainment licences for some local authorities has cost around £100,000 per authority. If that is to be the case for every local authority—we are talking about 40 authorities—that is £40 million being expended. The Minister may shake his head, but it is an issue of considerable concern to local authorities.
	I do not understand the reasoning for the change between the White Paper, which everyone thought was workable and understandable, and the present system. I hope very much that the Minister can give a rational explanation and some direct evidence as to the cost involved for local authorities. This is an issue we feel extremely strongly about.
	I also ask the Minister what consultation has been undertaken with the local authorities as regards setting up this computer system. Who will pay? Will the financial burden fall on the local authorities, and out of which budget will they meet that expenditure?

Lord Tope: This is the first time I have intervened in Committee. I begin by declaring the interests that I declared at Second Reading. I am a member of the London Assembly, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and, perhaps most relevant both to these amendments and to the Bill generally, for nearly 30 years I have represented a town centre ward on a London borough council.
	It follows that I have spent most of my political life arguing strongly for the devolution of power to local authorities and to local democracy—indeed, that is the reason I support the principles of the Bill. Therefore, with a certain surprise I find myself rising to support this amendment that will take a proposed power away from local authorities and give it to a central authority. I hope the Minister will bear in mind that I do not do that lightly; I do it because I have very serious concerns about both the burden that will be placed on local authorities and—from long experience I know the answer to my noble friend's question—about who will bear the cost. That is fairly clear. The Minister can no longer say that it is covered in the SSA because we no longer have SSAs, we have FSSs.
	My concern is the huge administrative burden. It may be okay if the personal licensee remains in the area and exercises that personal licence within the area of the local authority. As I understand it, the licence can apply throughout the country. The administrative burden is huge for a local authority, particularly for a smaller district council as distinct from a London borough council.
	I, too, shall be interested to hear the Minister's answer as to why the Government have departed from what appeared to be their original intention and intend to put this considerable burden on local authorities rather than introduce the more sensible provision of a central licensing authority.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have listened with great care to everything that has been said. I listened with particular care to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who has such excellent experience in the area. I listened to everyone else as well. But, as an ex-local councillor of a number of years' standing, I am allowed to give some preference to my local authority colleagues.

Baroness Buscombe: I also stood for the local authority.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not know that. I am sorry. I should have known. I start by correcting the history. The White Paper did not say anything different from the Bill. It said that local authorities would issue personal licences. In that sense, there has not been any change. That was the subject of consultation.
	The first difficulty raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was the difficulty of keeping in touch as between the licence-holding authority and any changes. That is resolved very easily. The Bill provides that the authority that issues the licence retains responsibility for that licence. So people applying for personal licences to the licensing authority under the aegis of the local district council have an obligation to notify the authority of a conviction for a relevant offence. It will be an offence for them not to do so. The local authority will be required to keep a record of the particulars of the personal licence. Therefore, the personal licence will state that "Graham Tope is authorised by the London Borough of Sutton to sell alcohol in" such and such a place. It will be the London Borough of Sutton which retains the licence.
	When the holder applies for renewal of the licence every 10 years, the application will be made to the original licensing authority. There is no question of it being moved to Richmond, Kingston or anywhere else. It will have retained the details of the personal licence. Again, it will be an offence for the personal licence holder not to inform the original licensing authority—the named licensing authority—of a conviction for a relevant offence. Where a court makes a conviction for a relevant offence, it will be under a duty to inform the original licensing authority. So all the details relating to an individual's licence history will be readily available to the licence authority whenever the licence is due to be renewed. There is no advantage in handling this matter centrally. It can perfectly well be done locally.
	I have heard it argued that local authorities do not have any experience of issuing personal licences.

Lord Redesdale: I apologise. The Minister seems to be moving on to a separate issue. He says that there would be no advantage in handling the matter centrally. It is not our intention to suggest that personal licences should only be directed centrally. Obviously, there will be a local element. However, all it means is that the administrator in the local authority will need to get on to an Internet access to the central computer. That will cut down on many of our concerns.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In that case I totally misunderstood the amendment. The amendment, as I understand it, provides for a central licensing authority to replace the local authority. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made that clear when she said that it is only for personal licences rather than premises licences that the amendment is being prepared.
	If that is what the amendment intends to say, then my assurances to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are very simple because the Bill provides for exactly what he wants. The Bill provides in Clause 8, subsections (6) and (7), that there can be a central database if that is what the local authorities want. There can be a system of linking local authority computer systems if that is what they want. Discussions have taken place with the Local Government Association about these systems, but the regime in the Bill works with or without a central register. If that is what the amendment proposed I could just sit down, but since it is not what it seeks, I had better continue with my argument.
	My next point is this. I have heard it argued that local authorities do not have experience of issuing personal licences. But they do. Public entertainment licences issued by local authorities are held personally. They involve judgments by the local authority about the fitness of the applicant. Licences for mini-cab drivers, which involve checks on criminal backgrounds, are held locally. So there is nothing new in that.
	The question of software then arose. I made it clear that there has been consultation with the Local Government Association about software. There is a possibility of combining software. There is no difficulty in ensuring that unnecessary duplication of methods does not occur. I can see no reason why additional expense should be incurred.
	The whole question then arises as to the rights of the licensee. When the police want to object to a potential licensee because he has a conviction, the matter goes before the licensing authority for its final decision. Applicants are entitled to a hearing where, if they wish, they can argue their case against the police. Setting up a central licensing authority would be an expensive and cumbersome procedure because it would have to include arrangements for the authority to act as a tribunal with all the supporting administration for hearings. Local authorities are ready-made administrations. They already exist. Issuing licences is a business they know well. It simply would not be sensible or cost-effective to create a new authority with supporting administration and accommodation. I was surprised, particularly at the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that anybody should wish to have an extra cog in the government wheel with the additional bureaucracy.
	The final point concerned cost. Again the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is in error. It is the intention of the system set out in the Bill that the costs bear directly on the licence applicant—the individual who will benefit from the service. It is fully established on the principle of full cost recovery through licence fees. Neither the council tax payer locally nor the taxpayer centrally should be made to pay in that way.
	I hope that I have dealt with all the arguments advanced, whether or not it is intended that the central licensing authority should be in addition to the issue of licences by the local authority.

Lord Redesdale: Perhaps I did not make it plain that I envisaged information being kept by the local authority, though we believe it could be adequately dealt with through a central system.
	I was interested in what the noble Lord said on the issue of costs. He raised the point that it would be a self-recovery scheme—a point he made in earlier debates. Does that mean that if one local authority finds it more expensive than another to issue a personal licence, it will be more expensive applying for the licence in one authority than in another?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That would clearly cause a great deal of trouble. Efforts will have to be made to ensure that local authorities do not do that in an extravagant way. I am sure that is possible.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to raise the matter of costs. The noble Lord said that they would be fully recoverable. But is enforcement against a person, if it is required, also covered? And what is the position if the person goes bankrupt?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I assume that a bankrupt would not be given a licence. I assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, means if a person subsequently became bankrupt. However, the fees are payable up-front.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If there is any problem with the personal licence there will be enforcement costs. I am asking whether or not they are included in the recoverable costs. If so, who would they be recovered from if the individual had gone bankrupt afterwards?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall have to think about that. It is not immediately clear to me what "enforcement" costs are. The costs are for running a system to provide personal licences and for providing a hearing, when necessary, when a personal licence is applied for. Subsequent additions to the database, if made by the applicant who is notifying a subsequent conviction, for instance, will not involve significant additional costs. If the additions are made by the police it will not involve significant additional costs. If somebody is acting as though they had a licence when they do not, that will be a matter for law enforcement and not a matter for full cost recovery.

The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord did not answer the extraordinarily interesting question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, which was this. If the cost of granting a licence by Muddlecombe-under-Slosh is £10—that would be recovered by Muddlecombe-under-Slosh Borough Council—and Burton-under-the-Widgewater Borough Council charges £35, how will that be balanced out? Who will be responsible for it and how will it work? The noble Lord failed to answer that question. Will he now please answer it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Forgive me for saying so but that is a relatively trivial question. Of course the costs of any service provided by a local authority can vary from one authority to another, for good reason and bad. Some variation in the charges made under cost recovery is entirely permissible. If there are extreme cases—in other words, if Muddlecombe-under-Slosh was charging 20 times what the neighbouring authority was charging—guidance would have to be issued.
	In any case, let me make it clear that the cost recovery scheme does not apply only to personal licences. The administration of the licensing system covers the administration, inspection and enforcement of both personal and premises licences. It will not actually be possible to distinguish between the costs of premises and personal licences because the administration will be co-ordinated.

The Earl of Onslow: Could not the noble Lord simply have said that charges will vary from authority to authority because that is the way the system is set up. That is the correct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, which very correctly the noble Lord has now given me.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Does the Minister see any parallel here with local authority search charges where in fact all local authorities are required to charge the same though the costs between different authorities are significantly different?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a useful parallel. I have already said that this is not a significant issue. There may be differences because of different circumstances. An administration set up for 10 licences a year will cost more per head than an administration set up for 10,000 licences a year. That is the nature of the beast.

Lord Redesdale: I apologise to the Minister but this will have a bearing on later stages of the Bill. We believed that the purpose of the Bill was to even out the licensing fees so that they were affordable throughout the country and the situation with regard to public entertainment licences was not reinstituted through this new authority. The Minister is now saying that the cost of personal and premises licences, through cost recovery—which is what geared up the cost of entertainment licences so massively in some London boroughs—could vary. What method is there for capping such variation?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There may be some variation. If the variation is unacceptable the Secretary of State will have to deal with it. At present there is no reason for concern. The Secretary of State will need to set a range of acceptable fees which will not give exact cost recovery but close enough to cost recovery to relieve the fear expressed when the amendment was moved; that is, that it would put a huge burden on the ratepayer.
	The fees would be set in bands by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State could include a geographical element. The Secretary of State could say, for example, that central London borough licences would be different from those in rural areas or that licences in the South East could be different from those in the North West. There are all sorts of possibilities.
	The fears expressed were profound. I sought to show that they were unjustified. The small differences between the cost of one licence and that of another do not justify the extreme provisions that would be brought in by the amendments.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to the group of amendments. More than anything, it has been worthwhile to explore the issues. That is particularly so, given the desire of so many beyond your Lordships' House—the industry, the police and local authorities—to see some form of central authority to handle the administration of personal licences, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly described as more of a burden.
	We believe that, as the Bill stands, the system will rely very much on the ability of different local authorities to keep records up to date, sometimes over a period of many years. There could be several issues that one might call "unsavoury" that attach to an individual in one part of the country that might not attach to his record in another part of the country. That is unsatisfactory, given the enormous responsibility that attaches to someone who has the advantage of a personal licence. Several good questions were raised about cost. The Minister says that that is not a significant issue, but, to those who have to pay, it is significant.
	I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We will think further, with care, and read in Hansard what was said. For now, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
	Clause 4 [General duties of licensing authorities]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 3, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) the protection of the quality of life of communities;"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 68, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 71.
	Amendments Nos. 68 and 70 would add a further licensing objective to those in Clause 4(2); namely,
	"the protection of the quality of life of communities".
	I tabled Amendment No. 68, which is closely related to Amendment No. 70 on public nuisance, in the hope that the Minister would enlighten the Committee on the account that the Government think should be taken of the needs of local communities and their quality of life, when it comes to the exercise of local authorities' licensing functions under the Bill.
	Members of the Committee who attended the briefing given by representatives of local authorities, which was chaired by my noble friend Lady Hanham, will have seen and heard the great impact that licensed premises can have on the quality of life of communities, not just in London but throughout the country. However, it is not made clear in the Bill that the needs of those communities will have to be taken into account by licensing authorities, when they exercise their functions. So that the Government's thinking can be made clear, I tabled this amendment and Amendment No. 70, which relates to the third of the licensing objectives:
	"the prevention of public nuisance".
	It is a probing amendment, which seeks clarification from the Government of what they mean when they refer in subsection (2)(c) to,
	"the prevention of public nuisance".
	When I first read the Bill, I found that to be one of the most intriguing pieces of the Government's drafting. As the Committee will be aware, public nuisance is a tort, under the civil law, and a criminal offence at common law. One example of public nuisance in the criminal context is the 1992 case of Ruffell, which is reported in the 13th volume of the Criminal Appeal Reports (Sentencing) at page 204. In that case, the offence of public nuisance was charged because the offender organised an acid house party in unsuitable premises that was attended by a large number of people. A road leading to the site was blocked by traffic; local residents were disturbed by noise throughout the night; and litter and excrement were deposited in adjoining woodlands.
	Undoubtedly, that is the sort of unacceptable public nuisance that, one hopes, would not be associated with premises or individuals licensed under the Bill. However, the definition of public nuisance is very broad. In the case of The Attorney-General v. PYA Quarries Limited, reported in the official Law Reports 1957 (Queen's Bench Division) at page 169 of the second volume, Lord Justice Romer stated:
	"Any nuisance is public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects. The sphere of the nuisance may be described generally as 'the neighbourhood', but the question whether the local community within that sphere comprises a sufficient number of persons to constitute a class of the public is a question of fact in every case.
	It is not necessary in my judgment to prove that every member of the class has been injuriously affected. It is sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has been so affected for an injunction to issue".
	I hope that the Minister will enlighten the Committee on the sorts of activity that the Government envisage when they refer to "public nuisance". Do they intend the definition of public nuisance developed by the courts, which has applied in the same form for several hundred years, to apply in the context of the Bill? If they do, does Clause 4(2)(c) mean that licensing authorities will be required to take steps to prevent anything that,
	"affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life"
	of communities? That is what my amendment would also require.
	It is not immediately clear from the Explanatory Notes prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the Government intend the definition developed by the courts to apply. Paragraph 38 of the Explanatory Notes states:
	"The third licensing objective, the prevention of public nuisance, will not extend to every activity which annoys another person but will cover behaviour which, when balanced against the public interest, is found to be unacceptable".
	That does not go into the detail that the courts have done, when defining what is a public nuisance. In particular, it does not mention the kinds of issues of definition relating to communities and sections of the public that Lord Justice Romer did in the judgment that I quoted. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will clarify the situation and provide the Committee with a more complete version of the Government's position on Clause 4(2)(c) than her department could—I say that with respect—in the Explanatory Notes.
	I turn briefly to Amendment No. 71, upon which, I know the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will expand. The amendment proposes another option to describe more specifically the licensing objectives. There has been much concern about the vagueness of licensing objectives, as stated in the Bill, particularly, as I have said, as regards the third objective—the prevention of public nuisance.
	The definition of public nuisance is, as I said, open to broad interpretation. The amendment would clarify the matter by stressing the need for balance between the interests of local communities and the leisure industry. It is an important balance, and we must strike it. I beg to move.

Viscount Falkland: I speak to Amendments Nos. 69, 71 and 72, which stand in my name. They follow neatly Amendment No. 68 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The largest amount of post to cross our desks in relation to this sophisticated and complex legislation has been concerned with this issue. A problem that is perceived may arise is the effect on amenities and on the lives of residents resulting from any increase in the use of premises licensed for the sale of alcohol and the provision of entertainment.
	Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 introduce further licensing objectives. Their purpose is to ensure that any difficulty which may arise out of licensed premises or, indeed, a concentration of licensed premises in any location, should be taken into account when applications are considered. The amenities referred to are not simply residential. They concern many other factors contributing to quality of life, including theatres, cinemas and other businesses.
	Demographic trends demonstrate that our population is growing older and that more people seek quiet and uninterrupted enjoyment of leisure and home life. At the same time, life for young people is very lively. The Bill seeks to establish a balance. It is clear from our postbags that there is no difference between the aims of the Government in introducing the legislation, of which we broadly approve, and all those who are affected—local authorities, individuals or businesses.
	At this stage, there is no intention to force a Division. Through the opaqueness of the legislation—if I may put it that way—we understand the intentions of the Government, and we approve. But there is much that needs to be teased out and explained. It is complicated legislation. Unlike the noble Baroness who preceded me, I am not a lawyer. I expect to be followed with alacrity by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has helped draft the amendment, but I am advised that the term "public nuisance" is likely to be given a narrow meaning by the courts when applied to the legislation.
	I am mindful of the comments of many lawyers on these Benches—some present and some not—who have said that clearly the legislation has been drafted by lawyers. As such we understand it; but it will be a lawyer's paradise when unscrambling some of the complexities which arise from it. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury to raise those matters.
	Surely, from a layman's point of view—and I stress layman, for that is what I am—there should be proper explanation in the Bill of what will be objected to by residents and others should trouble occur. There needs to be a better explanation of what should be taken into account should complaints ensue. The ease with which those complaints can be made will be dealt with later. The noble Baroness specifically mentioned a case which I hope is unusual. My mother-in-law lives in a city quite near London in a semi-pedestrianised area that is surrounded by many pubs and places of entertainment and where, under the present regime, a great deal of trouble is caused to residents.
	People may not know that for drinking to be extended to two o'clock there must be an entertainment licence and, often, food is provided. Generally, it is a completely different clientele from that which normally goes to pubs. This legislation improves the situation which exists at the moment. In a way, it is a problem created by the Government. Historically and culturally, pubs are the place where people choose to relax, drink alcohol—sensibly, one hopes—and meet friends. Because of the requirement that after a certain time it is necessary to obtain an extension to have drink and food, publicans have been forced to attract a totally different clientele, a broader age group of people and it is true that an element of binge drinking across the board before closing time causes problems in some areas. The problems arising now occur late at night when people start to dance and drink having already consumed a large quantity of alcohol. They create a great deal of "nuisance" in the way that I understand it, but perhaps not in the way that the law understands it.
	It is curious that in a pedestrian area where people leave places in the early hours of the morning, if their mood is good, they will sing. But sometimes they will shout to each other, and that wakes people up. That is bad enough, but it is not as bad as it might be because usually those people are on the move. When singing, they are on the move. Domestic squabbles—in the broadest possible sense—are a great problem. Those who have not had a good evening or who have fallen out with their partner will have a loud altercation in the street. An altercation in the street means that people stop now and again, possibly for a long period, to state their views. That is very difficult for residents, and it is a nuisance. Residents can shout or throw water from the windows. But that will not necessarily move noisy people and there will be some reaction. That is just one area of nuisance.
	Members of the Committee can laugh; it is perhaps funny in the way I tell it. But in the middle of the night, to an old or sick person or where there is a baby to consider, that behaviour is difficult to bear. The police may intervene, although not necessarily. Kicking cans and bottles is a nuisance, as is people jumping into cars outside the pedestrian areas, banging doors and sounding horns to one another because shouting is not enough. That may not be general behaviour but only two or three people need to be involved to destroy the night of the whole community in that area.
	Many Members of the Committee will know of motor vehicles which after a certain hour are turned by "certain" people—I shall describe them no further—into mobile entertainment centres. The noise level is the loudest possible. Psychologists may say that perhaps they want to draw attention to themselves or to release tension, but it is murder for those who live in the vicinity, particularly the old and the sick.
	I give these descriptions only because we need to discuss what is a nuisance and what is a disturbance to local people. The throwing about of traffic cones and dustbins is common and has gone on for ever. It is usually over quickly and need not be noisy. However, the other activities are noisy. Indeed, nowadays people—young and old—are less considerate of their fellows than used to be the case. I refer to the way they bang doors shut and so forth. I see the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, shaking his head. He obviously believes that this is a new phenomenon—

The Earl of Onslow: No, I do not. I believe that it is an old phenomenon.

Viscount Falkland: In any event, it is a disturbing phenomenon, which needs to be dealt with.
	I will now resume my seat, having described what a layman sees as a variety of nuisances and disturbances which may not be covered by the Bill. I hope that the Government will be more precise and exact in dealing with the problems and that they will satisfy local people's concerns about what will happen when the Bill becomes law.

The Earl of Onslow: I have named after me a pub called "The Onslow Arms". Unfortunately, my father sold it for an extraordinarily small sum of money about 20 years ago. Therefore, I do not have an interest to declare. However, I visit the pub, and I have noticed that the clientele varies during the evening. The clientele at seven o'clock is different from that at nine, ten or eleven o'clock. Furthermore, there are different types of people in different types of pub. That point was well made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
	There is nothing new about people behaving badly because they have had too much to drink. I confess that on return to this country on a troop ship in—well, practically before God—we used to get rather tight at dinner in the officers' mess. Every evening, we would walk around the deck in our mess dress and ceremonially bury over the side a British India Steam Navigation Company deckchair, thinking that we were terribly funny.
	People in youth have behaved like that for ever. That is why I was disagreeing with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I do not believe that the problem is new; it is one of privacy versus public interest and of individuals versus the general desirability. In fact, it is NIMBY versus the rest. It is an incredibly difficult problem to balance.
	The problem should be addressed at the lowest possible level of decision-making. We no longer like local magistrates, which is a pity, so we are giving the decision to licensing authorities. They can weigh up the balances between them. I disagree with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, not because I disagree with their aims but because I believe it impossible accurately to define this animal.
	Clause 4(2) states:
	"The licensing objectives are . . . the prevention of crime and disorder . . . public safety".
	What is the difference? It continues:
	"the prevention of public nuisance; and . . . the protection of children from harm".
	All those intentions can be encapsulated in one subsection. Clause 4(2) tries to be too definitional, if that is the right word.
	The Army Act contains a wonderful clause which relates to,
	"conduct . . . to the prejudice of good order and military discipline".
	Everyone knows what it is because it stares them in the face when an individual case appears; but it is almost impossible to define.
	I suggest that instead of giving an increasingly detailed description—the more detailed the description, the more restrictive it becomes—there should be a clause on,
	"conduct . . . to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"
	That would make matters clear to the licensing authorities which should then be able to weigh in the balance the interests of, say, Mrs Bloggs and the pop group next door, both of whom have reasonable and real objectives.
	I personally take a view opposite to that of my noble friends—I use the word "personally", not necessarily politically in that context because I believe that it is the way we should go.

Lord Borrie: I disagree with the conclusion drawn by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, as regards the suggested amendments. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, with a great deal of sympathy for what they were saying. Of course, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that the issue of people enjoying themselves regardless of the people in the neighbourhood is not new. But certain features are new and some of them were emphasised most clearly by the noble Viscount. I may summarise it as "amplified" noise or music, which is fairly new.
	There is a great deal of sympathy on this side of the Chamber—I speak before the Minister—with the view that there should be a stronger provision in the Bill requiring the licensing authorities to strike a proper balance between those who are engaged in drinking and being entertained, and local residents. But it is a major problem.
	I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on giving us the benefit of her researches into "public nuisance". I suggest that the jurisprudence for case law on the subject is not helpful because most of it is out of date and does not obviously deal with modern problems, many examples of which were given by her and the noble Viscount. A stronger provision is therefore needed.
	The noble Baroness quoted from the Explanatory Notes:
	"The third licensing objective, the prevention of public nuisance, will not extend to every activity which annoys another person but will cover behaviour which, when balanced against the public interest, is found to be unacceptable".
	What does that mean? It can mean anything. It is almost as bad as the Manual of Military Law phrase, to which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, directed our attention. We want something clear in relation to the interests of those in the neighbourhood, local amenities and so forth.
	I am not able to distinguish between the different amendments, but I ask my noble friend to take the matter away and come back with a provision which will help to ensure that the licensing authorities have a clear understanding of the different interests involved and have something more solid than the vague phrase contained in the Bill.

Lord Cobbold: The important word in this discussion is "balance". Amendment No. 71 tries to define that in more elaborate terms, whereas the simple term "public nuisance" gives a wider element of discretion to the licensing authorities. I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is better that the decision about balance and the element of public nuisance should be made at the local authority licensing level. Their members will have local knowledge and they will be able to judge whether the balance is tipped one way or the other.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Amendment No. 77, standing in my name, is included in this group of amendments. It seeks to add the words,
	"the protection of residential amenity"
	to the licensing objectives of the Bill.
	I became very concerned earlier when I heard legal precedents being quoted. I certainly would not be able to comment on them. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, reminded us of Section 40 of the Army Act—"conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline"—which rang a bell. Being so familiar with charge 252 of that section of the Army Act may tell the Committee a little about my past!
	Leaving that aside, other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment No. 68, seek to place the importance of the rights of residents within a community to enjoy security and peace in their homes, their streets and their communities as an objective of the proposed legislation. I speak in support of Amendment No. 68 and I shall not move my Amendment No. 77, as Amendment No. 68 goes wider than the terms of my amendment.
	I believe that if this objective is not clearly spelt out, it will be difficult for people in communities—that is what we are talking about; not legal precedents but people in their homes suffering, sometimes night after night—to have very much confidence in what is being proposed. We have to say that part of the objective is the protection of their peace and their right to live peacefully in their home.
	By including the protection of the community as an objective, it will enable the local authority—the licensing authority in this case—more easily to take into account the effects on the local environment, including parks, streets and residences. Local authorities in areas right across the country face a constant struggle, especially at weekends, to get people away from the town centre late at night. There are often few night buses. In the area I know best, Camden, they run at the rate of one an hour. Demand for licensed taxis and minicabs in the area outstrips the supply.
	No one can deny the problems caused in many parts of the country by a minority of irresponsible people leaving pubs and clubs. It happens not just in town centres. Since the publication of these amendments, I have received correspondence from people in rural areas as well as from people in city centres who are suffering from these problems. It can be anywhere in our country where licensed premises are close to people's homes. The hanging about, waiting for some form of transport, and the attendant problems of noise, litter and anti-social behaviour bring real misery to those who suffer from those who cause the problems.
	Discussion has already taken place about the definition of "nuisance". You have only to ask a person who has had someone do foul things on their doorstep what is a nuisance—they will soon tell you. The serious nuisance of urination and vomit in walkways, in doorways, and the ever-present problem in some areas of drug abuse and serious assault are real issues for far too many people in our communities. Do not take my word for it. Go through some of the estates where people walk past other people's homes from the pub, club, or wherever they have been, and do these dreadful things.
	For many years I lived on a housing estate in an area where I was also one of the local councillors. It was 20 years ago, but the problems I refer to today were evident then. From discussions I have had recently with people from local authorities, it is abundantly clear that the problems are very much worse today.
	I believe that licensing authorities need to have as part of their duties the additional objective suggested in the amendment. They must have as a central part of their responsibilities the right of the community to live in peace.
	I have mentioned the very real problems of drug offences and serious assaults. In Camden, where the police and the local authority work very closely and have made these priority issues, there are only two police officers stationed in the Camden Town area between midnight and 6 a.m. It would be interesting to know how many licensed premises already operate in the area.
	I would ask the Minister to consider these amendments sympathetically. They do no more than make as an objective of the Bill what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said last Thursday in Committee. Referring to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, he said that,
	"residents are entitled to the right to enjoy their possessions in peace".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 407.]
	The homes, the streets, the communities are possessions of people, who deserve and want no more than that: the right to protection and a peaceful life.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I believe that if this Bill is passed as currently drafted it will be a catastrophe for national amenity. I wholly agree with everyone who has spoken so far, and even with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I believe managed to misrepresent his own position, because I do not think that he is content with the Bill as it stands.
	The law as it stands does not afford sufficient protection to those who wish for normal sleep. Yet if the Bill is passed, with its encouragement of 24-hour licences and the statement in the framework document,
	"the vast majority of these registrations"—
	meaning licensed premises registrations—
	"should be automatic"
	the effect will be altogether inadequate. We have the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Noise Act 1996, and the law of private nuisance—which will not be admitted under the test in Clause 4 of the Bill because that is only public nuisance—and yet many thousands, nay millions, of people would say that the present protections are inadequate between the current hours of permitted drinking.
	Perhaps I may quote from a document supplied by the Meard and Dean Street Residents' Association. It is a statement by the Director of Planning and Transportation of Westminster City Council on this very point. He said this,
	"The enforcement powers the City Council is able to use . . . against noise inside or outside premises are limited to action against statutory noise nuisance. . . . The usefulness of this power in protecting residential amenity is limited. Noise, which is plainly audible inside a property, may not necessarily constitute a noise nuisance; and many sources of street noise are inherently transient and therefore not amenable to conventional enforcement action".
	I am sure that other Members of the Committee have, like me, sought to curtail noise at eleven or twelve at night. The only thing that works in the part of London in which I live is if I go down in my pyjamas, into the pub and up to the manager. That does cause a minor stir! If, in such a state, you ask very politely whether they might not turn the noise down, you do tend to get a rather shocked and co-operative response. Frankly, that is a rather extremist cause to pursue. The point I emphasise is that it is the early-hours drinking—which will not only be permitted but encouraged by the new regime—that will cause chaos, particularly in the provincial and rural parts of the kingdom.
	It is not anti-social or disorderly or drunken behaviour that we are talking about here. It is merely normal behaviour. It is normal noise at abnormal times that will constitute the most severe disruption to sleep. I venture to suggest that there are few in this House, having the benefit of a country retreat which is next to or near a pub, who can look upon these proposals with equanimity.
	I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who made the point that public nuisance is enough for local authorities to judge, to the remarks sagely made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Perhaps I may give one or two specific instances which I raised at Second Reading. It is public nuisance to carry on an offensive trade—we are not talking about that. We are talking about a normal trade, normally pursued; nothing anti-social; merely the opening and closing of car doors at three in the morning; people saying goodnight to each other across the car park and getting in and driving away. That is enough to waken a sizeable proportion of the population.
	Public nuisance is a disorderly house—we are not talking about that. It is acid house parties—we are not talking about them. As has been said—the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, a distinguished lawyer, confirmed the point—the threshold at which public nuisance bites is far higher than the amenity that we are all seeking to preserve.
	Perhaps I may detain the Committee a little further in regard to some of the particularities of the Bill. So far we have largely been dealing with generalisations but I should like to explain to the Committee, and convince the Minister, that there must be change.
	Clause 18 refers to "Determination of application for premises licence" and sets out the basis upon which any member of the public may make an objection to the granting of a premises licence. It states that the licensing authority,
	"must grant the licence . . . subject only to . . . such conditions as are consistent with the operating schedule".
	You have to look at Clause 17(4)(b) to see what that is about. Clause 17(4)(b) states that the operating schedule must include,
	"the times during which it is proposed that the relevant licensable activities are to take place".
	Any licensee or brewer with any sense will apply for a 24-hour licence, which is what the framework document tells us we should be pushing for. The Minister shakes her head. She will have her turn; I have got mine. I believe that that is what most people will apply for—not because they intend to open their pubs for 24 hours a day but because now and then they may want to and do not want to go back to the licensing authority to be able to do so. Now and then a big coach party will come in at 10 o'clock at night; people will be drinking heavily at 12 o'clock, one o'clock, two o'clock and the profits will be rolling in. The licensee will wish to stay open, and who can blame him?
	The Bill goes on to state that the only public objections which can be made to the licensing authority are those which are defined as "relevant representations". Those are themselves confined to representations about the likely effect of the grant of a premises licence on the promotion of the licensing objectives. This is a long way round to make absolutely plain that unless we change the licensing objectives there is no effective power of objection to the grant of a 24-hour licence. The licensing objectives refer only to public nuisance, and that is wholly inadequate to protect against ordinary conduct which is conducted at unordinary times to the detriment of local amenity.
	I commend Amendment No. 71, in which I had a hand, because that seeks to balance the needs of residential amenity with the needs of leisure amenity, and puts it specifically in those terms. It is always difficult to define such inherently indefinable things as "leisure amenity" and "residential amenity", but the law of England is littered with such general tests. The common law is built upon such general tests and the law of nuisance is built upon such indeterminate tests.
	Unless Amendment No. 71, or something very close to it, is incorporated, the Bill will destroy, in a way that many noble Lords may not realise, any power of reasonable objection on the part of any member of the public when any of these licences come up for review. That is why in opening I said that this would be a catastrophe for local amenity and would ultimately rebound on both us, as legislators, and on the licensing trade.

Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Perhaps I should point out to my noble friend Lord Cobbold and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that if you devolve decision making in this matter down to local authority level as they urge—and with which I do not disagree—you will get a much more restrictive policy in place than otherwise would be the case. This is for the simple reason that there are far more people on the electoral rolls who want a good night's sleep than people who want to drink in clubs and pubs until two or three o'clock in the morning. I do not disagree with such restrictions, but it is worth bearing in mind.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My name appears on Amendment No. 69 below that of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland; on Amendment No. 72 likewise; and Amendment No. 445 stands in my name alone. I shall not detain the Committee long—we have had a decent debate already—but my brevity should not be interpreted as a lack of vehemence on the subject. I do not have any emotional capital tied up in the particular wordings of the various amendments in front of the Committee, but I do wish to comment briefly on all three which stand in my name.
	In regard to Amendment No. 69, I can well remember when I was the Member of Parliament for the Cities of London and Westminster the representations made to me by the West End theatres about the effect on the amenities of theatre-goers of the surrounding circumstances throughout the West End. Of course they were particularly pre-occupied with the issue of drugs, but that is covered under Clause 4(2)(a). On the other hand, the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clark, of littering and fouling, both have a detrimental effect on theatre-goers and reduce the attractiveness of the theatre to them. If my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber was in his place, I am certain that he would say much more to the same effect.
	As to Amendment No. 72, there is no way in which I can improve on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Had I spoken before him rather than after, I would have likewise quoted the Westminster remarks, notably in regard to the narrow definition that the courts put on public nuisance in the Environment Protection Act 1990 and the hazard that we will get into if that becomes the broad portmanteau phrase in this Bill.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the other aspects of ambient noise. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Noise Abatement Society believes that 80 per cent of the trouble caused by people attending licensed premises occurs either when they are arriving at them or leaving them. Those are very much the kind of noises to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred.
	Amendment No. 445 is simply a belt and braces addition to the definitions. As I said, I have no emotional capital tied up in the particular definition of "public nuisance" recorded, but it is no bad thing that "public nuisance" should be defined at that point in the Bill.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I add one marker to Amendment No. 71 in relation to its reference to "working amenity". The Bill has a long way to go but, as time goes on, the definition of "working amenity" will have to include reference to the effect on people working in the industry of the much longer hours that everyone will have to work. The example has been given of bar staff trying to get home at two o'clock in the morning and young women on their own not being able to find transport and so on. It is not clear whether some of these points can be picked up within the framework of the legislation, but certainly the detriment to the community of commotion outside pubs and so on involves staff working in the pubs. Will the Minister give some thought as to whether, in broad terms, the magistrates or the licensing authorities will have enough powers? The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that they are unable easily to enforce their powers at the moment, but will they have enough powers to deal with the kind of matters which will arise as a consequence of the radical change in our social behaviour caused by the so-called 24-hour culture?

Lord Tope: When I declared my interests I said that I have represented a town centre area on a London borough council for nearly 30 years. In fact, within the ward I represent there are more licensed premises than in the whole of the remainder of that London borough put together. I could repeat, and probably exaggerate, the many horror stories that we have heard in the debate. All I will say is that I strongly recommend my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury not to go into a Sutton town centre pub on a Friday night in his pyjamas. It would certainly do nothing for public peace and quiet.
	We have all described problems of public nuisance and disorder, but these occur not only in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises. In a sense, if you live, or choose to live, very close to a licensed premises, to some extent you accept that that is a consequence of living there. The problem, certainly from my experience in urban areas, comes at dispersal time for people who live not in the immediate vicinity of licensed premises but in the surrounding area. The Government should consider the surrounding area rather than the immediate vicinity because residents who live some distance from licensed premises suffer greatest nuisance from the kind of noise and anti-social behaviour that has been described, or even from quite normal behaviour that would not be noticed at seven or eight o'clock in the evening but which is extremely audible and a considerable nuisance at two or three o'clock in the morning. That is the concern we have.
	I have very considerable sympathy for all the concerns expressed during the debate. However, in addition, I almost have concerns for the interests of the industry itself. That is why I prefer Amendment No. 71, the only amendment that refers to the need for balance, which I accept is important. I do not believe that any of us in this debate are arguing for local residents to have a right of veto over a licence application. I understand very well the industry's concerns about what the Minister in her letter to me described as over-zealous local authorities or licensing authorities.
	From long experience, I say to the Government that local authorities are also planning authorities and that most, if not all, local councillors have very considerable experience of dealing with difficult, locally contentious planning applications, which, for good planning reasons, have to be granted despite the often very vociferous objections from the local residents whom they are elected to represent. That kind of situation is not unknown, I suggest, to any local councillor.
	Most local authorities make sensible planning decisions most of the time. One reason for that is that they know that if they go with the wishes of the residents against planning guidance, they will face appeals. They know that they will have to defend their planning decisions on appeal—often an expensive business—and that if they turn down planning consent on frivolous grounds, costs may be awarded against them. That places a very considerable inhibition on local councillors who have to deal with vociferous objections from residents. I suggest that, though the planning environment is not exactly the same as the licensing environment, the considerations affecting both will be very similar.
	I say to the industry and the Government that, though I understand very well the concerns about over-zealous licensing authorities—or, perhaps put more politely, local councillors who pay proper and close regard to the wishes of the people who have elected them—they will in practice be much less likely to arise because of the checks and balances that are in place.
	In her letter to me, which I received today, the Minister quite rightly referred to the points that we have made about the balances in the Bill and said that she would be prepared to consider them and, if necessary, make them more explicit. In the light of today's debate, I hope that the Minister will feel able to do that. I do not believe that any of the amendments tabled today are likely to be pressed. However, we shall all look forward to the Government saying on Report that they have listened to our points, that they are able to make the safeguards more explicit, and that, from the point of view of all Members of the Committee who have spoken, they can tilt the balance a little more in favour of local residents than appears to be the case on the face of the Bill at present.

Lord Redesdale: I apologise for intervening. I have put my name to two amendments and I have only one short question to ask. Many Members of the Committee have described numerous potential nuisance situations that take place outside licensed premises. In that respect, will the Minister indicate how far local authorities will be guided to take into account the area to be licensed?
	I ask that question particularly because we are discussing the licensing objectives, which also relate to other parts of the Bill. In the case of a temporary licence, who would be responsible for ensuring that the criteria are met? For example, if carol singing takes place in a shop, is the shop owner the licensee? If it takes place in a public park, is the local authority the licensee? It seems to me that if the local authority granted itself a licence and also tried to fulfil those objectives, there would be a conflict of interests. Perhaps I have totally misunderstood that section of the Bill. However, I should be grateful for the Minister's answer.

The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may beg him not to apologise for intervening. His interventions are almost always valuable. Please do not apologise for one's own abilities.

Baroness Blackstone: I hope the Committee will find it acceptable if I take a little time to respond to the debate, first, because I take very seriously many of the issues that have been raised and, secondly, because the noble Viscount Lord Falkland said that by far the largest part of his mail concerned this issue. We need to resolve a number of misunderstandings, and I hope to shed some light on the issues in the hope of achieving greater clarity.
	I was disappointed to hear one of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who always talks such good sense. He said that he advised his noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury not to turn up at his local pub in his pyjamas. As I live fairly near the noble Lord, I had hoped to turn up at his local pub with my camera and wait for a big din and for the noble Lord to appear. However, perhaps he will be discouraged by his noble friend.
	Each of the amendments in this group, although expressed rather differently, has a similar intention. They all address the issue of the cumulative effect of a large number of pubs, clubs and other licensed premises concentrated in one area and the nuisance that may arise as a result. As various speakers in this debate have pointed out, nuisance can take a variety of forms, some of which may be quite innocently generated. But let me start with the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on public nuisance.
	We have to remember that the word "nuisance" in the Bill refers to noise and other nuisance caused directly from the licensed premises concerned. However, we have strayed rather a long way from that concept. Urination in public, turning car radios to their maximum volume and all kinds of other unpleasant behaviour—

The Earl of Onslow: I thank the Minister for giving way. She makes a very important point. Does nuisance arising out of licensed premises cover the slamming of car doors by people leaving the licensed premises, or does it arise after they have left? That is a perfect example of how the difference may be defined. We all want to achieve the same end; the question is how we get there. I should be grateful for the Minister's help on that point.

Baroness Blackstone: I was about to come to that. In responding to this debate, perhaps I could ask for the help of Members of the Committee. If I can be allowed to answer questions rather than being interrupted all the time, we shall make quicker progress.
	We are not focusing on all the unpleasant behaviour, either during the day or late at night, that has been referred to. If customers behave badly after they leave the licensee's control, they are personally responsible for their actions and have to be dealt with in various other ways, with which I shall deal in a moment. Licensing law concerns the placing of duties on licensees. Therefore, we have to understand that it does not make any sense to require licensees to deal with nuisance once customers are outside their control.
	I turn to the legal points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The judgments that she cited have developed on a case by case basis. Yes, we do expect case law developed to date to be applied here. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that it would not be appropriate to provide a rigid meaning as to what constitutes a public nuisance. I strongly agree here with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
	The balance referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is precisely that which will be applied in the Bill. What may constitute a public nuisance will obviously vary from case to case. It would be quite inappropriate to seek to give it a completely rigid meaning. Being precise would either exclude a case which, on any analysis, would give rise to public nuisance or might include an instance which the public—residents living in the vicinity of licensed premises—do not consider causes a nuisance. It is right that the objective of the prevention of public nuisance can be considered against individual circumstances.
	I believe that my noble friend Lord Borrie and many other speakers in the debate are jumping the gun. Many of the points they wish to raise should be made when, later in the Session, we discuss the Bill that will be introduced to deal with anti-social behaviour.
	Licensing regimes place obligations on licensees to control behaviour in their premises. The problems of behaviour in the street, at the borders of the community, are a matter of personal responsibility and accountability before the law in a variety of different respects. The Government will introduce a whole raft of measures to address the anti-social behaviour that has been described. I have every sympathy with those who do not want to see that kind of behaviour and want it dealt with. But I do not believe that this is the right Bill in which to do that.
	The Government are committed to ensuring that licensing authorities have the powers to address disorder and nuisance which arise from the carrying on of licensable activities. The Bill puts together measures which are designed for that purpose. Members of the Committee will perhaps forgive me. In a sense, I am returning to issues that were raised at Second Reading, but I think it necessary in the light of today's debate.
	First, the Bill expands the existing court powers, on application by the police, to close all licensed premises within a specified geographical area for up to 24 hours where disorder is occurring or indeed is anticipated. These powers presently apply to premises selling alcohol but are being expanded to include, for example, all entertainment venues—theatres, cinemas, night cafes and takeaway outlets—that operate late at night. The current powers in Section 188 of the Licensing Act 1964 are under-used by the police, particularly in the context of anticipated disorder arising from events such as football matches or public demonstrations.
	Secondly, the Bill expands the police powers that we introduced in December 2001 to close down disorderly and excessively noisy pubs, night clubs, restaurants and hotels instantly for up to 24 hours. Under the Bill, these powers will now apply to all entertainment premises—concert halls, theatres, cinemas, indoor sporting events, night cafes and night takeaways—and will extend to temporary events such as one-off raves. These are powerful deterrents on premises likely to cause serious disturbances in the community.
	Next, we shall be abolishing the fixed and artificially early closing times which provoke binge drinking and result in large numbers of young men hitting the street simultaneously, causing the police enormous difficulty. The peaks of disorder immediately after the current fixed closing times of 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. (3 a.m. in the West End of London) should be substantially reduced by a more gradual and orderly dispersal of customers.
	We shall be providing a new mechanism for reviewing licences when any problems arise, backed by an extended range of sanctions, rather than the current practice of having to await renewals before any action can be taken. We shall be including in the range of sanctions a temporary or permanent reduction in trading hours and suspension of licences, allowing the licensing authority to hit the profits of businesses causing problems in the community rather than merely dealing with individuals.
	We are strengthening the laws on the sale of alcohol to, and its consumption by, under-age children, removing the proliferation of exemptions that presently exist. We are extending the offence of permitting disorderly conduct on licensed premises to all premises licensed under the Bill, all entertainment venues, all qualifying clubs, theatres, cinemas, concert halls, indoor sports arenas, all-night cafes and late-night takeaways. We are requiring the management and staff of such premises to assist the police in expelling drunk and disorderly persons from the premises. We are enabling the police to seek court orders banning the sale of alcohol on train routes either temporarily or permanently.

The Earl of Onslow: I hesitate to intervene, but are we not concentrating on the object of the Bill—in other words, the object of the licensing authorities? The noble Baroness's remarks are concerned entirely with the consequences of that. Surely it is best to clear our minds of any consequences of a breach of the aim and get the aim totally clear in our mind; namely, the duty of the licensing authority.
	If I am totally wrong—I do not think that I am—there is practically no difference among anyone in this Chamber as to the aims. Our difficulty is in defining those aims, and how we achieve them. We know in our heads what they are but we cannot see them on paper. I wish that the noble Baroness—I know she is trying to help the Committee—would concentrate on that issue rather than on matters with which we shall deal later, and rightly so.

Baroness Blackstone: No, I profoundly disagree with the noble Earl on this occasion, having agreed with him earlier. We had a debate on the first day of Committee on the objectives of the Bill. I do not believe that the noble Earl was in his place. I believe that we have to stick to the debate that we are having now. I remind noble Lords that this is Committee stage. I am trying to provide, in as simple and short a form as possible, the range of ways in which the Bill deals with the possible cumulative effect of a number of different licensed premises in one small area. That is what these amendments are about and what we should be focusing on.
	Finally, we are extending police powers to confiscate alcohol in designated public places, on which the Home Office has been assisting us—a point that is relevant to some of the concerns raised.
	That said, I have listened carefully to the arguments. We need to find a balance, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold said, that addresses the very real concerns of licensing authorities and some local residents, while not hindering those who want to go about their business in a perfectly law-abiding way, providing employment in local economies and amenities for the local community.
	This is about the delicate balance between competing interests: the public interest and specific interests. By the same token, we must avoid undermining our key policy objectives, such as an increased diversity of late-night provision and a reduction of the disorder associated with artificially early fixed closing times, on which we have consulted and on which we have had a majority in favour of what is being proposed.
	In short, we need to be sure that what we do will address whatever problem exists in a proportionate way. The number of licensed premises in inner London has fallen by as much as 10 per cent over the past three years, while, I am afraid to say, the perception of the cumulative effect of the problem has, from what I have heard today, increased. That is not to say that we do not recognise the special position of some parts of London where tourist centres and dense residential areas are sometimes closely intermingled.
	However, from the debate today, there is a clear issue. We believe that it might be dealt with at two levels: first, by improving the integration of the planning and licensing regimes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and identifying and strengthening areas where there may be shortcomings; and, secondly, by providing local authorities with the encouragement and tools to approach the problem of street disturbance in an imaginative and holistic way. Local authorities already have powers to address cumulative impact through existing planning law, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who has much experience in the matter, said. They are required to take into account the implications for crime and disorder and public amenity of any planning application and to impose conditions accordingly.
	The Bill will improve the integration of the planning and licensing regime. Clause 7, which we shall discuss later, makes detailed provision for the exercise and delegation of functions by the licensing authority. That is the key point. Where a matter relates to a licensing function and to another function of the local authority such as a planning matter, the Bill makes arrangements for local authorities to consider them in a co-ordinated fashion. It may do that by referring the matter to another committee—in this case, the planning committee.
	The Bill would also place a duty on the planning committee to consider the report of the licensing committee when making its recommendations. Similarly, the local authority in question would have the power under the Bill to ask the licensing committee to consider licensing and planning matters together, taking advice from the planning committee where appropriate. That mechanism will enable local authorities to take sensible and proportionate action where they believe that an area already has a density of licensed premises.
	We must exercise caution, however, in how licensing authorities go about deciding how many licensed premises are too many. The hospitality and leisure industry is large and dynamic. It would be wrong to impose limits arbitrarily, because there is potential to affect the livelihoods not only of licensees but also of their employees. We intend to make clear in guidance some of the criteria to which a licensing committee might have regard in reporting to a planning committee on cumulative effects.
	I shall now discuss the second approach. The Government believe that effective solutions to the problems of late-night anti-social behaviour go much wider than just planning or just licensing. Nuisance and disorder can manifest themselves not only in licensed premises but in the street, too. Even where licensing authorities see a reduction in the number of licensed premises in an area, it is unlikely that that will significantly reduce the numbers of visitors attracted by a lively city centre or local community members continuing to enjoy their leisure time. Short of removing the entire stock of licensed premises—in which case, the problems would just move down the road—central and local government, the police and the wider public and private sectors will still need to think imaginatively.
	There are examples of excellent practice around the country. I commend Manchester's City Centre Safe scheme, which has brought together the local police, the licensed trade and the local authority in a package of initiatives that have produced a significant year-on- year reduction in city centre assaults. Manchester's bus queues are managed by loaders provided by the local transport company, defusing them as a potential source of disorder. Some licensed premises have made voluntary payments for policing. The police themselves operate an innovative approach to enforcement, including the Top Ten Premises enforcement scheme, which allows better targeting of police resources at the worst performers. This is an excellent initiative, which I hold up as an example of what can be achieved by an imaginative local authority working with its partners.
	The Government have announced that there will be a Bill on anti-social behaviour in this Session. We have provided the police with additional enforcement powers; for example, through fixed penalty notices. This Bill includes powers to close down licensed premises on the spot and extended powers to confiscate alcohol in sealed containers to prevent nuisance drinking. We are looking at town centre management issues, including transport provision and litter collection, through the national alcohol harm reduction strategy.
	We should not forget the bread-and-butter provisions of the Bill. We want to improve the quality of life of people living in areas experiencing disorder and public nuisance related to artificially early fixed closing times, for example, which has been forgotten in this debate. The Bill will give a voice to local residents, who will be able to make representations on any licence application in their area and to call for a review of an existing licence on grounds of crime and disorder, public nuisance, public safety and the protection of children from harm. Those are the four objectives of the Bill.
	In conclusion, the Government agree in principle that licensing authorities should not be powerless if faced with nuisance and disorder arising from an unusually high concentration of licensed premises. However, I hope that the Committee understands the need for balance. We need to protect pubs, restaurants and other businesses from arbitrary closure by the over-zealous licensing authorities I mentioned in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. We also need to ensure that the benefits for consumers—and I strongly believe this to be at the heart of the Bill—are not diluted without good cause.
	We must try to avoid potentially perverse effects. People are attracted to an area by its reputation rather than by the number of licensed premises. Some parts of central London will always be centres of night-time leisure arising from the tourist industry, as are some parts of central Paris, New York, Tokyo and other cities, regardless of the number of pubs or clubs. Reducing numbers may serve only to cram existing customers into the resultant smaller provision. If fewer premises licences are available, or if a cap is placed on their number, they are likely to become tradable commodities, distorting the market. Then there is the possibility that, without reducing demand, the smaller number of remaining premises would simply expand to accommodate the existing market, achieving very little.
	In response to my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, who asked me to be sympathetic about the concern behind these amendments, I am. The case for existing licensing authorities to act in the genuine interest of local residents is clear. The Bill gives them that power, but, as I stated, we will look at the matter, and, if necessary, make it more explicit. If that is the case, I will return to do so at a later stage.
	Some of the Bill's provisions already address the issue, but, given the strength of concerns expressed, we shall consider them further. We aim to return to the House with a framework that is fair, based on the evidence, not arbitrary, and has at its centre the important element of balance that I mentioned several times in responding to the debate. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Lord Monson: Does the noble Baroness not agree that the problem has little to do with the number of licensed premises in an area? The problem is caused by the time of day or night at which the premises disgorge their customers into the neighbourhood. Will local authorities be allowed, with the backing of their residents, to stipulate that such premises, however many there may be, must close at midnight, or thereabouts, if they wish?

Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. This is a deregulatory Bill. I set out clearly at Second Reading that there was a White Paper and extensive consultation, after which it became clear that there is a wish for wider opportunity for some licensed premises to open for longer hours than at present. There are good reasons for this, which relate to what we have just been debating. Binge drinking before an arbitrary closing time causes as many problems as it prevents.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response, which, as she said, was intended to clear up a number of misunderstandings. Indeed, there is obviously a misunderstanding between all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister. We are not debating the cumulative effect; that debate will come later in the proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is absolutely right to say that this has nothing to do with the argument about whether we are talking about one or a thousand premises in an area. We are talking about one of the four licensing objectives in the Bill—namely, the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. With these amendments we are seeking clarity as regards the meaning of,
	"the prevention of public nuisance".
	I was much disturbed by the Minister's response. She explained that the term of "public nuisance" as one of the licensing objectives extends only as far as the behaviour—the activities—within the premises, and said that what happens beyond the premises is a matter of personal responsibility. That simply is not true. A publican can become criminally responsible if he serves someone who has had too much to drink in the knowledge that he or she will subsequently get into a car and drive beyond the premises. Indeed, there are a number of ways in which a publican can be held criminally responsible for the behaviour of someone within his premises, and beyond.
	The debate is about what we mean and understand by the phrase "public nuisance". In a sense, it is about premises being open for 24 hours. It is not necessarily about isolated events that take place at a certain time. I shall try to respond to the comments made by a number of noble Lords in an effort better to explain what the amendments seek to achieve. We are talking about the potential for 24 hours of opening time. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is absolutely right in what he says. Notwithstanding the fact that most publicans will not want their premises to remain open 24 hours a day, they will seek to obtain such a licence in the event that they should wish, on occasion, to remain open for as long as it is economically and socially viable for them to do so. We are talking about the impact, the effect, of the harm on the neighbourhood night after night; in other words, the disturbance of the peace.
	I referred earlier to a meeting chaired by my noble friend Lady Hanham where a police officer said, "Alcohol equals crime and disorder". Many examples have been given in this afternoon's debate, especially by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, of the number of incidents, or activities, that can often lead, night after night, to both crime and disorder from one, or many, premises. It is most important to try to pin down as early as possible in our debate the intention in terms of the ability of local authorities to respond to, or impose, the licensing objectives when seeking to protect the interests of local communities.
	As I said in my opening remarks, the reference in the Explanatory Notes to the meaning of the term "public nuisance" is too vague; it is too broad. I make no apology to my noble friend Lord Onslow for these amendments. We need such amendments, because they will enable us to understand the parameters involved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, for his support of Amendment No. 68. The noble Lord must forgive me for the legalese that I used when introducing the amendment. My purpose is principally, and quite rightly, to pin down the Government and ensure that they clarify the meaning of "public nuisance", as long as it remains in the Bill in its current form. Otherwise, once the Bill is enacted, local authorities and the police may find themselves faced with great difficulties when seeking to protect the quality of life of communities.
	At the moment there is the possibility of seeing the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, dressed in his pyjamas—silk ones, it is to be hoped—at a certain hour of night seeking to stop this nuisance continuing night after night in the area where he lives. But at what time of night could the noble Lord sensibly go out in the future? We should remember that this Bill, which we support in principle, will allow licensed premises to remain open for 24 hours a day.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, asked whether the Bill contains powers to deal with the radical change in our culture to the 24-hour night-time economy. The Bill is unclear on the subject of such powers. Yes, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, local authorities can and do make sensible decisions; for example, when discussing planning matters. However, they can do so only if the mechanisms and powers are in place to enable them to respond to reasonable objections. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, put it very well when he said that what we are talking about is the power of "reasonable objection".
	Some noble Lords seem to believe that the amendments now before the Committee are not quite right; some believe that they are too narrow, while others think that they are, perhaps, too broad. We are looking for the same outcome: we are all concerned about the real impact that this legislation will have on our local communities. We all need to be sure that local authorities, and the police, will have the proper powers to deal sensibly with these changes because they will make a difference. As I said on Second Reading, we have no idea what the effect of the Bill on our communities will be. This is a shot in the dark. It is one that we are all keen to take, but one about which we are deeply concerned. Although the industry will have the opportunity to develop premises to meet the needs, the wishes, and the desires of all of us to have liberalised licensing laws, at the same time we must ensure that it will not compromise too much. The balance must not be too unfair with regard to all of us when we are wearing our hats as local residents, whether it be in our towns, in our cities, or in our rural communities.
	We are seeking to understand and to strike a balance with regard to this licensing objective. We should remember that it is one of the key aspects of the Bill. I am sorry, but I believe that the Minister has failed to respond to our concerns. However, I do see a glimmer of light in relation to her closing remarks on planning. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reference to,
	"improving the integration of the planning and licensing regimes".
	We welcome that move, but we need to be sure that that improvement will not mean that licensing authorities will be afraid to grant such licences to further premises because of the possible impact on the local community. It would be preferable if we had a clearer understanding of the phrase "public nuisance" and of the position of local communities under the Bill, rather than a clampdown within local authorities because they are afraid of the possible effect on their local residents if more premises licences were granted to the industry. There is a balance to be struck in that respect.
	I note that paragraph 14 of the Framework for Guidance—which some of us have managed to find, and which contains so much of the meat of the Bill's implications—states that the guidance,
	"would, for example, provide for a proper separation of the planning and licensing regimes to avoid duplication and inefficiency".
	That seems to conflict entirely with what the Minister has just said about the need to improve integration of planning and licensing regimes.

Baroness Blackstone: I think that what "improvement" means here is avoiding duplication, where it currently unfortunately exists, but maintaining a sensible integration where, as I mentioned in replying to the debate, that is beneficial to the local community.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her clarity in responding to my comment. I hope that there will be some thought about how the arrangements are really going to work. I find her words about improving the integration of planning and licensing regimes encouraging, but I wonder whether the forthcoming planning Bill will reflect the need for some form of integration. As matters stand, and as so much of the framework for guidance stands, it is unclear how the arrangements are going to work. Nevertheless, I find definitely encouraging what I see as something of a concession. It is also a move for which local authorities, in particular, have been asking.
	I have taken enough of the Committee's time. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who took part in this important debate on the licensing objectives. However, many questions have not been answered satisfactorily. Unless the Government table some welcome amendments before Report, we shall most certainly return to the issue at that stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Pensions

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place on occupational and private pensions. The Statement is as follows:
	"I wish to make a Statement on our Green Paper—Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement.
	"Decisions on pensions are some of the most important of our lives. Since coming to office in 1997, this Government have faced three specific challenges on pensions: the challenge of affordability, of pensioner poverty, and of expectations. Rising longevity poses important challenges for the affordability of pensions systems right across the developed world. The old age dependency ratio is expected to more than double in the European Union, with even greater increases in other developed economies such as Japan. People living longer is good news. However, if people want to see continuing rising standards of living in retirement, they either have to save more, work longer, or a mixture of both.
	"The United Kingdom is in a stronger position to meet this demographic challenge than most other developed countries, not only because our dependency ratio is expected to increase by half as much as the European average, but because of the choices we have made over the past five years to ensure that the UK pensions system remains affordable.
	"We rejected the demands of those who said we should link the basic state pension to earnings because this short-term solution would not have been sustainable over the long term. Instead, because of our targeted approach, projections show that public spending on pensions in this country will remain stable over the next 50 years at around 5 per cent of GDP. In contrast, EU forecasts show that other European countries such as Germany and Spain will require increases of between 40 and 80 per cent in public spending on pensions over the next 50 years in order to meet their pension liabilities.
	"It is this same targeted approach that has enabled us to meet the second challenge—that of pensioner poverty. Since 1997, we have strengthened the foundation of basic state support through the introduction of the minimum income guarantee and, from next October, the pension credit. As a result, next year, the poorest third of pensioners will be on average £1,500 a year better off.
	"I can tell the House that we continue to reject calls from the pensions industry and others that all targeted support for pensioners should be scrapped and instead added to the basic state pension. Such a move would mean an increase in the maximum basic entitlement of £10 a week for some pensioners, but at the expense of a £17 a week cut for the poorest pensioners—redistributing resources from the poorest to the richest pensioners.
	"Over the past five years, as we have taken action to tackle pensioner poverty, the pension contributions of people on high incomes have risen by 40 per cent, increasing the incomes they can expect in retirement. The challenge facing society today is therefore one of the expectations of middle-income earners, people who expect to see continuing rising standards of living in retirement, but who in order to do so will either have to save more, work longer, or both.
	"Evidence shows that perhaps 3 million such people are currently not saving enough for their retirement. And others may not be saving enough to provide the pensions they want. At the same time, occupational schemes have come under pressure from rising costs and increasing complexity. Some employers are closing schemes or cutting the level of contributions, and many people are leaving the workforce earlier.
	"There is a choice to be made about how we meet these challenges. There are some who believe that a radical strengthening of the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work and that the UK should move beyond it, for example, adopting further compulsory pension contributions. We believe that the partnership between government, individuals, employers and the financial services industry has long been a strength of the pensions system in the UK and that the proposals we are setting out today will renew this partnership and reaffirm the responsibilities of each member.
	"Our proposals show how, with all partners playing their part, the voluntarist approach can work to maximum effect. The test will be whether, with this radical strengthening of our approach, employers and employees can rise to the challenge voluntarily or whether we will need to introduce more compulsion.
	"In a voluntarist system, over and above the level of support provided by the state, individuals are best placed to judge their own long-term savings needs and aspirations for retirement. However, the success of this approach rests on the information and understanding people have and the clarity of the options open to them. It will fail if the complexity of products and the cost of financial advice mean that people are deterred from saving.
	"Since 1997 we have taken action to rebuild trust in the financial services industry, to clear up pensions mis-selling, and to introduce new savings products, like ISAs and stakeholder pensions, opening up opportunities for more people to save. However, for too many people, pension planning has remained an incomprehensible maze. As I said to the House in July,
	'Pensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision'.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/02; col. 1053.]
	"Nowhere is this truer than in taxation of pensions, which has grown so complex as to challenge even the experts. There are currently no fewer than eight different sets of tax rules in use for pensions, each with its own annual limits on contributions and benefits, imposing unnecessary inflexibility, driving up costs, and—worst of all—discouraging people from saving.
	"So today I can announce a radical simplification of these rules. We propose to sweep away the eight existing pensions tax regimes, with their associated limits on annual contributions and benefits. In their place, we propose a single lifetime limit that is assessed once only, at the point of retirement, and we propose to set that limit at £1.4 million.
	"The lifetime limit will be complemented by a light-touch compliance regime, based on an annual limit of £200,000. This limit will not affect the vast majority of people. Further details are set out in an Inland Revenue consultation document, published today by my right honourable friend the Chancellor. And, as my right honourable friend announced in the Pre-Budget Report, the tax free lump sum will remain. Existing tax reliefs for pension contributions for employees, the self-employed and employers will also remain.
	"These proposals will help people to make clear and confident decisions, encouraging more saving and enabling more people to build up a bigger tax free lump sum. They mean far greater individual choice and flexibility about when and how much to save in a pension.
	"Over 99 per cent of the population will be able to save more in a pension—with tax incentives—than under current rules. The proposals will reduce administrative burdens on employers and pension providers alike. Taken with other measures I am announcing today, they could save employers between £150 million to £200 million a year in pensions administration.
	"We shall match this radical simplification of pensions taxation by breaking down other barriers to pension saving. We shall provide individuals with more information about their own circumstances. Our proposals would increase the availability of state pension forecasts and extend the coverage of combined state and occupational pension forecasts.
	"We shall promote total benefit statements in the workplace, and highlight the additional value tax relief makes to saving in a pension. To broaden access to advice, we shall work with the financial services industry to develop mass-market financial advice in high street banks, and shall consult on options for a possible requirement on employers who do not provide pensions to provide financial advice free of charge through the workplace.
	"I can confirm to the House that we shall implement the recommendations of the Sandler report to make it easier to save through simpler products, dramatically stripping out regulation and sales costs. We propose to offer the self-employed the right to opt in to the state second pension. And I can also announce that we shall increase product choice and flexibility in the annuities market by consulting on proposals to allow limited period and value protected annuities.
	"The proposals we are setting out today will also reaffirm the role and responsibilities of employers in the pension partnership. Many employers recognise the important benefits to recruitment, retention and staff motivation that good pension provision brings. But, elsewhere, some employers have been reducing their financial commitment and contribution to workplace pensions, causing anxiety and damaging confidence in pension saving. There is a difficult balance to strike here. We want to increase member protection without imposing burdens on employers.
	"I can announce today that we propose to create a new proactive pensions regulator to focus on schemes where there is a high risk of fraud, bad governance or maladministration. We are also setting out proposals for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close, with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions. We propose stronger protection for members where employers wind up schemes, and the capping of provisions to prevent executives abandoning ship and taking the lifeboat with them. We recognise, as good employers already do, the vital interest employees have in their pension arrangements, so we propose requiring employee consultation before schemes are changed. We can expect to enhance protection for employees only if we make it simpler and easier for employers to run schemes.
	"Following Alan Pickering's report we propose radically to reduce the regulatory burden on occupational schemes by simplifying the contracting out rules, including reforming the reference scheme test and ending restrictions on how and at what age contracted out rights can be drawn. We shall also replace the minimum funding requirement with scheme specific funding requirements, saving companies £80 million a year and consider allowing employers to make membership a condition of employment. I can also announce our aim to consolidate all pensions legislation into a single pensions Act.
	"These radical reforms mean big cuts in the administrative burdens on employers and schemes. We shall also work with a new employer-led task force, including trade union membership, to identify and promote good practice.
	"Enabling people to work a few years longer can make a huge difference to retirement income. The 1980s and early 1990s saw the employment rate for older male workers decline. That trend has been reversed, with 900,000 more people over 50 now in jobs than in 1997. But we must go further, doing away with inflexible and outdated approaches to retirement. Our proposals will allow people to choose to work for longer if they want to.
	"We propose to promote flexibility in retirement by building on the success of the New Deal 50+; legislating against age discrimination; ending compulsory retirement ages; and raising the normal pension age for most groups in the public services to 65 for all new entrants.
	"To smooth the cliff edge between work and retirement we propose to allow people to carry on working while drawing an occupational pension. And to improve the incentives for those who want to work past state pension age, we shall bring forward increases to the extra state pension people get by deferring. This means that a single pensioner who has accumulated £100 a week state pension and second pension entitlement could choose to take their pension at 70 and get £150 a week instead.
	"We are also consulting on the chance for those who defer to take a lump sum instead of the enhanced pension. For a single pensioner, this would be a one off payment of £20,000 on top of their normal pension, or £30,000 for a couple.
	"I have one further announcement to make on the state pension age. We have received representations for a significant change, with persuasive arguments to move to a higher state pension age, releasing resources for use elsewhere in the pension system. I have carefully considered this option and have concluded that it would impact disproportionately on the poorest workers most dependent on the state pension, many of whom have had hard working lives. As well as being forced to work for longer they would, because of lower life expectancy, see a bigger than average slice of their retirement taken away. I have therefore decided that we should not raise the state pension age. Our measures to give people far greater choice about flexible retirement are the right way to address this issue.
	"The proposals we are setting out today seek to renew the pensions partnership in the UK. They show how, with all partners playing their part, the voluntarist approach can be made to work to maximum effect. As I have said, there are some who believe that the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work and that the UK should adopt a system of compulsory pension contributions. There is a choice. The case for compulsion has not yet been made. But because of the magnitude of such a decision and the need to help build a wider consensus on the way forward I am today establishing an independent pensions commission reporting to me as Secretary of State on whether the current voluntary system is sufficient to ensure that employers and employees rise to the challenge.
	"I can tell the House that Adair Turner, former director general of the CBI, has accepted my invitation to chair this pensions commission. It will report to me regularly on whether there is a case for moving beyond voluntarism. The time has come for all the partners in the pensions system—government, employers, employees and financial services—to rise to the pensions challenge. I commend the Statement to the House". My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place in a way that suggested not only that she believed it but also that she understood it. I declare an interest as chairman of a company pension scheme.
	This is the second Green Paper produced by this Government. The previous one, Partnership in Pensions, was not as large as the current one and had a foreword by the Prime Minister. The current one merely has a foreword by the Secretary of State. I am not entirely clear as to the significance of that. Since that time we have had about 38 consultative documents. A whole mass of new material arrived today which we shall wish to study carefully.
	We welcome the proposed simplification of regulations and pensions taxation, always provided, of course, that that does not conceal some stealth tax. We shall consider that matter very carefully indeed. A key feature of the previous Green Paper was that the Government wished to move from a situation where 60 per cent of pension provision came from government and 40 per cent from private sources to a situation where 60 per cent came from private sources and only 40 per cent from government. I ask the Minister: is that still the Government's objective? Time and time again government action has applied pressure in the opposite direction. Either it has an adverse effect on private provision or such measures as have been introduced to increase private provision have produced poor results. The result is that the industry and pensions provision generally are in a state of crisis. I am glad to see that I have support in the form of nods from the Benches opposite.
	The Green Paper published today shows remarkable complacency. The main attack on private provision was, of course, the notorious action with regard to ACT of the Chancellor when he entered office. As a result pensions have been deprived of some £5 billion a year—now £25 billion in total and rising—which has seriously affected their available resources and is a major contributory factor in the closure of many final salary schemes to new members. The rate of closure has doubled in the past year. However, one does not get that impression from the Statement. Some 55 per cent of leading companies have now closed final salary schemes to new members. Indeed, a number of companies have closed schemes completely, even to existing members. Against that background, it is also the case that some schemes have been wound up or closed. I am glad to welcome the proposals in the Statement that suggest that action will be taken to prevent members of schemes, who had expectations with regard to their pensions, being adversely affected, as some have been.
	I also welcome the change being made, at long last, with regard to the minimum funding requirement. However, I am not at all clear how changing to a scheme-specific proposal, as mentioned in the Statement, will save companies £80 million a year. Perhaps the Minister will explain.
	In addition to the adverse effect that the Government's policy has had on company schemes and private provision, their attempt to increase that provision has not been successful. It was expected that some 5 million people would take out stakeholder pensions, but I believe that the figure is less than 1 million. Will the Minister tell us what the actual figure is? I believe, too, that 46 per cent of the schemes imposed on companies by the Government have no members at all. Furthermore, I fear that even those in tracker funds, for example, will not produce a satisfactory return for those investing in them. That is a considerable deterrent to people engaging in schemes as the Government wish them to do.
	As for the state second pension, a whole range of bodies including the NAPF, the Pensions Policy Institute and the IPPR have suggested that it is not ideal. As the Minister implied, they would prefer to have an improvement on the basic state pension. With regard to the state second pension, the Statement did not mention when the change would come from graded to flat-rate places.
	The Government have included proposals allowing people to work longer if they want to, and the idea that people can draw their pensions while still in employment. That is scarcely a new idea; indeed, I believe that it has been proposed at least five times. It is a question not of "Have I Got News For You", but of "I Have Not Got News For You". We have found considerable doubts about the proposal, but we shall consider it with interest.
	The Government have made the interesting suggestion of changing to a lump sum proposal if people defer the drawing of their state pension. The figure of £20,000 was suggested. Will the Minister explain where that figure comes from and whether it will be a tax free lump sum? I give an example from the experience of my family. My sister deferred her pension for a year in the hope of getting an increased return, but found that it took more than 18 months to get paid the increase that had been deferred for a year. Administration of the pension system is lamentably bad; it has not significantly improved over the lifetime of the Government.
	No mention was made of the requirement for people to draw annuities at the age of 75. It will be a disappointment that no such provision is included in the Statement, given the fact that an amendment has been carried twice in your Lordships' House. It is all the more important because pressure on annuity rates will be upwards due to the Government's proposal to increase borrowing. Therefore, people who are unable to defer the drawing of their annuity will have to draw it in January, if they reach the age of 75 at that time, although annuity rates are likely to rise thereafter.
	The complexity of the Government's proposals with regard to tax credits has resulted in an appallingly low level of take-up. The NAO report, recently issued, suggests that no less than 20 per cent of pensioners fail to take up their entitlements. Since 1997, the crucial aspect of the Government's policy has been to move towards increased means testing and a system with the minimum income guarantee. That has been a considerable deterrent to saving, as people have to save a considerable amount before they draw anything over and above the minimum income guarantee. Will the Minister tell us what size fund one would need to get any advantage from saving, over and above what one is likely to get under the terms of the minimum income guarantee?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not understand that question.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am asking how much one would need to save in order to get a return that is greater than the amount likely to be provided by the minimum income guarantee. We shall return to that point later, if need be.
	At all events, Mr Pickering, who advises the Government on pensions, says that he does not believe that one can have a pensions credit and minimum income guarantee as a basis on which to build a pensions system for future decades. The combination of means-tested benefits in relation to the overall situation is a source of considerable concern.
	I refer to the Government's proposals for the publication of forecasts of what people are likely to receive on retirement. That forecast will be based on many assumptions, but to judge the accuracy of such a forecast one has only to compare what people expected to receive a year ago to what they are likely to receive now, given the changes that have taken place in the stock market, the annuity rate and so on. The Government are apparently proposing to have a combined pensions forecast for individuals, for both state and private provision. That forecast is likely to be highly inaccurate. Indeed, it would have been very inaccurate, even in the case of people with an Equitable Life pension, who were already drawing it and had been drawing it for 20 years. They have recently discovered that their expectations have been greatly disappointed and that their pensions have been cut by perhaps 20 per cent. To start forecasting people's pensions on various assumptions seems more likely to mislead than to help them, despite the fact that people engaged in pilot schemes suggested that it had been helpful.
	The document is complex and reflects a great deal of thought by the Government, but it does not represent the kind of analysis and proposals that are necessary if one is to reassure people that in 10, 15, 20 or 30 years' time they will have an adequate income on which to live. The pressure will be to put more and more people on to the means-tested benefit level. We see clearly from the latest figures the extent to which the number on means-tested benefit is increasing. The proportion of people who are at that level, rather than at the level that might reasonably be expected given their previous incomes, is worrying.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords—

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have almost finished. The Statement is complacent, but we shall need to debate the situation in government time in the near future, when we can express our concerns in more detail.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, speaks, I point out that we are allowed 20 minutes for both Front Bench speeches and my reply. That means that if the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, takes only eight minutes, I cannot offer a word to the House on the two speeches.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is a very important Statement and I had understood from the Clerks that it has been the custom for rather more discretion in these matters to be shown.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I am of course conscious of the time. Although I sympathise with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, the House is put in a difficult position if one of the two main Opposition speakers takes 13 minutes out of a potential 20 minutes. Clearly, I shall do my best to be brief. Equally, this is an important and long-awaited Green Paper and I hope that the Minister will give substantive replies.
	We have had over the past two weeks the most sustained government media operation since they came to power to spin down expectations for the Green Paper. Now we know why. I declare an interest as a cynical old pension fund manager who has seen far too many company chief executives massaging down market expectations before a disappointing announcement. The first thing that one learns in the City is that bad figures take longer to add up. Now we know that in politics bad Green Papers take longer to cobble together.
	I start with a serious complaint about a great discourtesy, to put it politely, in the noble Baroness's ministry. I received just before 3 o'clock a copy of the Statement and of the Green Paper. The Statement had large chunks blacked out, as did the Green Paper. I really do not see the point of normal courtesies if that sort of thing happens. Vital sections were blacked out. Does the Minister condone that shabby behaviour? If not, will she please find out who was responsible and give a proper assurance to the House that such behaviour will not happen in future?
	The collapse in confidence in pension funds and long-term insurance has seriously undermined savings in the economy as a whole. We used to have a culture of "save for a rainy day" but now it is increasingly "borrow and spend today and let tomorrow take care of itself". As the NAPF put it,
	"today's pressures tend to trump tomorrow's aspirations".
	That is why we on these Benches—unlike the other two main parties but like an increasing number of people and organisations throughout the country—believe that there is no alternative to ensuring that everyone on moderate and higher incomes is building up either a company or a stakeholder pension.
	The Green Paper still bangs the drum for stakeholder pensions. We know that the take-up in the market so far has been very poor. The reason is simple: insurance companies are not charities and it is simply not economic for them to sell stakeholders at 1 per cent unless volumes are much higher. We on these Benches support the 1 per cent cap. However, can the Minister see that that will work only when we get the economies of scale that come with compulsory pension provision?
	In pensions today, we are seeing a new version of Gresham's law: not bad money driving out the good but bad pension providers driving out the good, as John Lewis said only the other day, as all its competitors were closing down their schemes.
	I turn to the announcement. What exactly will be the powers and functions of the new "proactive pensions regulator"? Will he be able to show the yellow card to rogue employers rushing to close down pension schemes without proper consultation? That is a bitter blow and usually means a sharp pay cut in practice. Does the Minister agree that that breaks a moral contract with employees? How will the Government deal with companies such as the Big Food Group, which has a current stock market value of £200 million and a corporate jet costing £400,000 a year to swan around in, but which has just closed its pension fund to existing members? Does that involve fraud, bad governance or maladministration, or simply downright meanness and management with the wrong principles?
	The Statement also projects public spending on pensions to remain stable over the next 50 years as a proportion of GDP. The reason for that is simple: we pay such rotten state pensions. NAPF shows us at the bottom of the European league. I have not time to go into figures, but they are publicly available. No wonder we are spending only 5.5 per cent of our national income, compared with much higher figures for other countries, which also have much higher pensions.
	How will the new £1.4 million single lifetime limit work? We are told that it will be assessed at the point of retirement. But will that involve what one puts in or what one takes out? How will one know, when one is investing, how much it will roll up to? The basic problem is not that of people saving too much, which the scheme appears to address, but that of people on moderate incomes saving too little.
	Finally, we are to have an independent pensions commission under Adair Turner to report on whether the voluntary system can save our pensions. Who will be the members, how will they be chosen and will they really be independent? What will be the balance between the supporters of the Brown and the Blair view of pensions? In particular, when will it report?
	Last year at conference, the Prime Minister said:
	"In New Labour, we are at our best when at our boldest".
	In this regard, we have a mishmash of half measures on top of a morass of old Labour means testing. That is Labour not at its boldest and best but at its weakest and worst.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall be as telegraphic as I can, given the decision of the House to confine the two Front Bench speeches and the Minister's reply to 20 minutes where possible. Rather than going into any of the more descriptive stuff, I shall try to answer questions as briefly as possible.
	The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether it was still the Government's intention to move from 60:40 to 40:60. We are travelling in that direction and we seek to continue to do that. The noble Lord also asked about figures for stakeholders. Nearly 1.2 million have been sold, 40 per cent of them to people with incomes of between £10,000 and £20,000; 97 per cent of those people are of working age. We are indeed meeting some of the target audience whom we were seeking to help to build up a second funded pension.
	The noble Lord also asked about S2P and why we were not following the advice given to us to build it into the basic state pension. Behind that is a question about what one's national insurance entitlement brings. Putting additional money on to the basic state pension is opposed to our targeted approach, including access to a state second pension. One does not have to be in the national insurance system to earn that—one can get it as a carer or disabled person. Targets help with those who most need it.
	Noble Lords may well be aware that 90 per cent of men have full basic pension by virtue of a complete national insurance record. The figure for women having a basic state pension on their own NI record is 15 per cent. Any increases in the basic state pension would not be enjoyed by those women except through the sadness of bereavement. In other words, unless one targets, one does not help those who do not have a complete NI record. That may change over time but the gender discrepancy is huge. That is why it would be regressive, not progressive, to amalgamate S2P with the basic state pension.
	The noble Lord asked when we might expect that to go to a flat rate. That will depend on our assessment of when we believe the time is appropriate. We have not yet made a decision. He also said that we were having a crisis in DB schemes. It is certainly true that last year about 1 per cent of DB schemes closed. However, the latest figures that I have seen show that of those in occupational pensions, 4.6 million are in DB schemes and less that 1 million are in DC schemes. They still remain the major pension form of occupational pensions. I suggest that what matters is not so much whether someone is in a DB or a DC scheme; DB schemes reward late career salary progression—that involves men, mostly—and the employer obviously carries the risk. However, DC schemes may be more attractive to those who change jobs regularly or have more modest earnings, particularly women. The key issue is that of employers' contributions. The problem is not that of going from DB to DC schemes but that companies have taken the opportunity on average to more than halve their contributions: the average figure has dropped from 9.9 to 4.1. That is why DC schemes appear to be such a poor buy; the reduction in contributions by employers is involved. If that changes, DC schemes could be an equally attractive option for those with a rapid career movement.
	The noble Lord asked whether the lump sum on deferring the state pension would be tax free. No, my Lords. We are saying that if at the moment, as a single person at the age of 65, one has a state pension of £100, by deferring for five years one will be able to draw a state pension with S2P of £150 but that one might prefer to take that increment as a lump sum instead. Those are the proposals.
	The noble Lord raised the issue of annuity rates. He knows the Government's arguments. We believe that an annuity is pooled risk and ensures a reliable flow of income. It is worth emphasising that the average annuity pot in this country is £25,000. Two-thirds of people have pots of under £25,000. That is skewed by a figure at the top. Half of all annuity pots are under £10,000. So the rules at 75 years simply do not come into play. They are small sums and we need to make sure that people invest them wisely for their old age.
	The noble Lord asked at what point people would be better off on pension credit. The bigger argument at the moment is that someone who has, for example, a small pension of £100 per month is no better off with that pension than they would be on MIG. Under pension credit, they will keep £60 of that £100. Therefore, every additional £1 over the basic retirement figure—£75 per week at the moment—is available to come into pension credit. So one will keep 60 pence of every additional new pound one earns up until the taper ends. So at £1 it is worth saving. It is a very directly targeted reward for small savers. I hope that, as a result, it will be welcomed, and particularly so by the noble Lord opposite.
	The noble Lord queried pension forecasting. From the pilots that were quoted, we find it valuable. It led to 30 per cent of those who took part in the pilots seeking additional information and 8 per cent taking up further provision. While I accept some of the provisos that the noble Lord attaches, none the less the pilots show that pension forecasting can give people an early warning that if they wish to have a more comfortable old age, they need to make further provision.
	Finally, the noble Lord gave us a critique of means testing. If one does not means test and one gives the flat rate to everyone, about one-third of the population cannot need it and one-third of the population will be worse off. The point is that by targeting, we have helped those without complete NI records—mainly older women. If the noble Lord thinks that we should take away from elderly widows to give to Members of your Lordships' House, so be it. But that is not my position.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to the blacked-out line. I queried it myself. I was assured that this was conventional where one is dealing with financially sensitive information coming from the Exchequer. It is common practice when dealing with Budget information. That is confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Therefore, no disrespect is suggested to the House; it is common procedure to protect information until it has been reported to MPs. I am grateful to see that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who has been a Treasury Minister confirms that.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, if I may say so, that is absolute nonsense. If one looks in detail at what has been blacked out, one can see that there is no way in which that is the case. I operate in financial markets. I know what is market sensitive and what is not. I must ask the Minister to look in detail at what has been blacked out and to reply to me on those lines.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have looked at it in detail. I have been assured that it is Treasury policy not to release information of that kind before the Secretary of State has stood up to present it in the House. That is the assurance that I have been given. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me, I shall be happy to follow this up further. I can see how irritating it may be for him, but I am assured that that is the convention and practice.
	The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, raised the issue of compulsion. He is absolutely right that unless employers contribute, neither do employees. With regard to stakeholders—all the information from Legal & General shows this also—where employers contribute, so do 70 per cent of employees. Where employers do not contribute, only 15 per cent of employees do so. That is a key point.
	The noble Lord asked about setting up the commission. Its point is precisely to see—and to hope—that we can make the voluntary provision, which has been so successful in this country, continue to work. But if it does not, we shall have to review it because we are determined that people will have the pension coverage they need.
	As to the noble Lord's point about people saving too little, that is true. But that is a judgment about what people think they should have in their retirement. They can make that judgment by deciding to save more or by working longer or possibly even by reducing their aspiration of what income they should enjoy in their retirement. At the moment, unless they have such information and know what the options are, they will not be able to make informed choices. That is the push of this Green Paper.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I do not know whether or not this was blacked out in the copy, but I certainly do not accept paragraph 7 of the Minister's Statement. That states:
	"The United Kingdom is in a stronger position to meet this demographic challenge because of the choices we [the Government] have made over the past five years".
	To ascribe our position exclusively to what the Government have done over the past five years is utterly absurd, and it is entirely typical of the kind of ridiculous claims the Government make.
	On a more fundamental point, is not the real danger that we are heading for two nations in retirement? We have the public sector, with guaranteed final salary schemes and assured retirement ages, watching, at times with some complacence, the private sector which, as my noble friend has said, is in undoubted crisis. Surely the reason for that crisis is not uncaring employers, but the fact that over the past five years—and this is the significance of "the past five years"—the Government have struck against personal provision, including by the notorious £5 billion per year pensions tax.
	Is the Minister aware that although some of these proposals are undoubtedly useful, they also undoubtedly fall short of the radical action needed to encourage wider personal provision, including scrapping the rule that requires in all circumstances annuities at the age of 75?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, leaving aside the purple prose, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has made two points: on ACT and annuities. On ACT, he knows perfectly well where the Government come from. We believe that the old ACT system was a tax deformation. Money was sent out in dividends which would have been better invested in companies. I think as a result we have seen the British Economy in a better state—weathering the global recession—than almost any other economy.
	Secondly, the Myners report also made clear that what mattered was not so much tax dividends—ACT—but the investment decisions and investment strategies made by managers. That was tenfold more important. I think that was the major push of the noble Lord's question.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for this very comprehensive Statement. We need a great deal more time to consider it, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said. Clearly, we have to make time for a debate on the subject. It is far too complex to be dealt with simply in questions on the Statement.
	As to the Minister's Statement today, the issue of people not saving has again been raised. People generally, particularly poorer people, do not save because they cannot afford to. In those circumstances, it is absolutely essential that the state basic pension is sufficient to enable people to live some kind of life. Indeed, I note that the NAPF has made this suggestion among its recommendations.
	I still adhere to my view that the basic state pension should be linked to the earnings index. But the reason why a number of us feel that the pensions industry and pensions provision faces a crisis is what has happened recently in connection with final salary schemes. I declare my interest. I am a member of Amicus, the union that has been much involved in negotiating pensions for its members over the years. We were very proud that we had negotiated some very good schemes for our members, mainly final salary. We now know what is happening in a number of firms where these schemes are being wound up. New employees are being offered a deal that is fundamentally inferior to what was on offer in the final salary scheme. In some instances people who were members of final salary schemes are finding they will not get what they thought they would get under those schemes.
	Clearly, there are major problems. It seems to me that something must be done to protect employees' rights in these schemes. I note that there will be a new pensions regulator. I do not know yet what role the pensions regulator will have. But clearly something must be done to protect employees' rights.
	I notice that major unions have made statements this morning—the GMB, my own union and so on. The unions regard pension provision as deferred pay. They are concerned that if deferred pay is damaged, it is the same as wage cuts, and they are threatening dispute action in a number of cases. I have no doubt that if those developments proceed we shall see industrial disputes in some major companies. In that sense I believe that there is a crisis in the pensions industry.
	However, there is no time this afternoon to conduct a full discussion of all the issues that arise in this important Green Paper. I hope that the opportunity will be afforded to this House to debate those issues in the near future.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on my noble friend's last point regarding the shortness of time for debate, I do not believe I am breaching any great secret when I say that we are expecting, subject to the usual channels, one of our Back-Bench debates in late January to be made available for a debate on pensions as my noble friend suggests. As I say, that is subject to the usual channels and the arrangement of ordinary business. But I agree that we cannot deal with these complex issues in a quick Statement. We need time to reflect on the report, take advice and see how the debate develops.
	My noble friend's second point related to the attachment to the basic state pension. I have already made the point that it does nothing to help those with incomplete NI records, of whom a large number are women. It is also the case that it preserves existing inequalities among pensioners. My noble friend may have been right in 1979 but she is wrong now.
	Since 1979 the bottom one-fifth of pensioners have seen their income grow by around 30 per cent; the top one-fifth by 80 per cent. The average is around 64 per cent. In other words, inequalities have widened and to throw the same money at everybody preserves those inequalities and does very little to reduce poverty. As a result of the actions of my right honourable friends in another place, both the current and former Secretaries of State, the poorest one-third of pensioners have seen an improvement in their income in real terms by £1,500 a year since we came into office. I am sure that my noble friend will want to congratulate us on that.
	Again, I have already answered my noble friend's points about DB schemes. At the core is the level of contribution. Provided the level of contribution is as high over time, DC schemes should produce the same sort of result as DB schemes. But not, as my noble friend said, if employers use the opportunity to cut their contributions.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, following on from that, can the Minister say why the greatest inequality in pensions is not mentioned at all in the Statement? I refer to the inequality between men and women. It is simply not mentioned in the Statement. Are any measures to be introduced to tackle that issue?
	Secondly, the Statement says that the Government will consider allowing employers to make membership of a pension scheme a condition of employment. What is that if it not compulsion? Why is the only issue on which there is compulsion one that is directed towards employees and not employers when, as the noble Baroness in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spelt out, numerous employers have welched on their deals on pensions in the past five years?
	Finally, can the Minister explain how the incentives for deferment of the uptake of the basic state pension can possibly be in harmony with the pension credit? What measures will there be to ensure that people who defer their state pensions do not subsequently lose out on pension credits because of their greater income?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to look at Chapter 7 in relation to women. I admit that there is nothing on this in the Statement as such. But in Chapter 7, for the first time, we have a section on women's situations. For example, if I can draw her attention to section 7.1, paragraph 6, it says that most women work fewer hours for lower pay and for fewer years than most men. So they acquire less national insurance rights and have less occupational pension coverage. But that reduced pension income, given women's earlier retirement age and greater longevity, has to last them for longer. Therefore at each step of the way we have to intervene to ensure women's greater financial prosperity in old age.
	My point is that women's financial penury in old age is a consequence of their situation in the labour market through their working lives. To put it another way, a man may start single, marry, have children, divorce, become single again, re-partner, but throughout that time he almost certainly works full time and contributes to his pension. Almost every one of those steps will affect a woman's contributions to her earnings and therefore to her pension. She is therefore locked in that situation.
	I hope that when the noble Baroness has the time she will read this report—it is very long. It will be seen that at each step we are trying to take measures to improve the situation of part-time workers; to improve childcare access for women; to improve their situation vis-à-vis national insurance schemes; to try to bring them into occupational pensions and to try to improve their situation through targeted support like S2P in retirement. But it must be analysed step by step, which is all I can suggest to the noble Baroness. It is locked into the inter-linking between their earnings and caring capacity in their working lives which generates such poor state and occupational coverage as reflected in their national insurance rates.
	The noble Baroness asked about employers. The point on compulsion is that up until 1988 employers could make membership of a scheme compulsory as a condition of employment. That was then scrapped. We are putting forward for consultation—this is a Green Paper—whether or not we should go back to that situation and allow employers to make it a compulsory condition of employment. That is not the same as saying that employers themselves will necessarily contribute. But our experience is that where they have such a scheme, they tend to. The second issue of compulsion is one that we shall keep under review. At the end of the day, if employers do not contribute then, as we know from experience, many employees fail to contribute also and as a result they fall back.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, the Minister spoke eloquently this afternoon about how people will need to contribute more to their pension schemes, save more, retire at a later date or enjoy lower living standards when they do retire. Will she be honest with the House and acknowledge that millions of people in Britain will be in exactly that position of having to retire later or save more as a direct consequence of her Government's decision to take £5 billion every year from their pension schemes?
	In response to the question asked by my noble friend in relation to the need to encourage companies to invest more in their businesses, was the Minister saying that the Government felt that that was more important than the long-term prospects of pensioners in this country? Can we have a straight answer? If the noble Baroness wishes to persuade people—a proper goal—to contribute more to pensions, is it not high time that the Government reversed the damaging decision they took to take away £5 billion from people's pension funds when they had every expectation that that money would be there to look after them in their old age?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have given my answer on ACT and I shall not expand further on it at this stage. However, I am happy to come back to the new point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about people seriously under-saving.
	The best evidence we have is that if we assume that people wish to enjoy, for example, 50 per cent gross income in retirement—it is worth emphasising that that means 62 per cent net income because they are not paying national insurance contributions and the like—then around 12 per cent of people are seriously under-saving. If however we are talking of having a gross income in retirement of 40 per cent or a net income of around 50 per cent, we are coming down to a ballpark figure of around 1 million.
	So a serious problem arises for people with modest earnings. It does not arise for those with the poorest earnings. It will be seen on Table 2.7 in the Statement that up to £300 a week the state pension will give replacement values of 50 or 60 per cent or more; indeed, for the poorest it will actually give replacement values of nearly 140 per cent. But for those earning between £15,000 and £25,000 a year—the group seeing their pension promise reducing given longevity and the stock market turmoil—if they wish to enjoy higher pensions than they are currently in line to receive, they indeed have to save more, work longer or alternatively reduce their expectations. There is no way out of that, given increasing longevity.

Earl Russell: My Lords, when I was a rather feckless young man of 23, newly arrived in London and able to think of a thousand things on which to spend my money, I was furious to discover that I had to make a compulsory contribution to a pension scheme. Now, having retired six weeks ago, I am extremely grateful that I did. Does the Minister think that that helps to make out the case that my noble friend Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay made in favour of compulsion, although not necessarily to contribute to one's employer's scheme?
	Does the Minister remember—she probably does not—an occasion in the debate on the Address two years ago when I advised her not to claim for the Government all the credit for the success of the global economy and to remember that before she had to start saying that the Government were not to take the blame for all the failures of the global economy? Does she have the tiniest bit of regret that she did not take that advice?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, all that one need do is consider the state of the British economy, compared to other economies, to see how robust it is. We have higher employment than we have ever had and less long-term adult and youth unemployment than we have had since the late 1960s. Noble Lords should also consider the low level of inflation that we enjoy.
	It is worth emphasising to the noble Earl that low inflation is of particular value to women. In the kind of high-inflation economy that we inherited, a rate of 10 per cent would mean that the value of a pension would halve in eight years; at 5 per cent, it would halve in 14 years. With the current level of inflation, it would halve only after about 29 years. That is a real return for the Government's investment in our economy.
	The second point that the noble Earl made was about compulsory contributions. It is worth reminding the noble Earl that annex 4 to the Statement gives the composition of the group without pensions. We know that half are low-earners—with less than £10,000 a year—who have a real problem with debt. It might be better for them to rely on state provision. Two thirds are women, for the reasons that I suggested. A third work part-time. A third are young—under 30—and may be in the situation that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was in. Half of those with slightly higher earnings had broken work records, but nearly all of them had partners who saved more than they did. We take isolated figures and do not consider household savings.
	Given all that, the noble Earl can see why significant tranches of the population do not feel that a funded pension is for them. That is not to say that we should not try to persuade them to save for it, but, for many people, it is not sensible to go into a funded scheme. They would do better staying with S2P.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I recognise several useful measures in the Statement. However, the debate we should have is about whether those measures are adequate for the scale of the problem we face. As I have not seen the Green Paper, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether, to inform that debate, the Government have set out their view of a reasonable objective for future levels of pension income relative to wages. If not, can it be set out before we debate the matter?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we say that it is a matter of choice. We give figures to show people what they would have to save, given certain assumptions, for a number of years, if they wanted a gross income of 66 per cent—80 per cent net—or a gross income of 50 per cent—62 per cent net. We set it out in that form, but, ultimately, it is someone's choice what level of income they wish to experience and what arrangements they will make to arrive at that level. It may be determined by their mortgage situation, whether they are putting children through university and other commitments.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister said to my noble friend Lord Higgins, I think, that shifting to 60 per cent private provision was no longer a target, just a direction of travel. What is the current proportion of private provision to public? What does the Minister expect those ratios to be in 10 years' time as a result of the Green Paper?
	Can the Minister also give the Government's position on defined benefit and defined contribution schemes? Are the Government now indifferent as between those schemes? I took from what she said that they were complacent about the continuance of defined benefit schemes, although my reading of the statistics is that the rate of closure is worrying, if one believes that such schemes should be maintained.
	How transparent will the work of the new insurance commissioner be? How independent will the commissioner be—

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The pensions commissioner.

Baroness Noakes: I beg your pardon. I meant the new pensions commissioner—the position being taken up by Mr Adair Turner. How transparent will the advice given to Ministers be? How is that position independent, given that Mr Adair Turner appears to be well entrenched, at least in Number 10?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the statistics that she wants about the 60:40 per cent or 40:60 per cent point. I cannot say what the situation will be in 10 years' time. That will depend on what happens with the take-up of stakeholders, with the pension credit and the like. I emphasise that that is the direction in which we wish and seek to move .
	I resent being told that I am complacent about DB schemes. I said—I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not hear me—that if DC schemes attracted as much investment as DB schemes, the return over time for the person in the funded scheme should be broadly the same. I complained that employers too often took the opportunity to move from DB to DC schemes, not just to reduce risk but to cut contributions by more than half. If that is being complacent, the noble Baroness and I attach rather different meanings to the word.
	The noble Baroness talked about the insurance commissioner. I am not sure whether she was talking about the new pensions regulator or the new commission that will be headed, possibly, by Mr Adair Turner, the name that the noble Baroness mentioned. It will be independent, in the sense that it will seek to embrace sections of the industry, including—I hope—the trade union movement. It will make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the adequacy, reach and coverage of voluntary provision. In the light of that information, it is open to the Secretary of State, if he is not satisfied—and to Parliament—to return to the issue of compulsion, raised from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Transport Investment Plan

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on transport investment.
	"Today, I am publishing a report on progress since April 2001 on the delivery of the 10-year investment plan for transport. This investment plan commits the Government to spending over £180 billion—both public and private investment—over a 10-year period. It is an unprecedented commitment, providing stability and increasing spending over the long term. And maintaining that investment year on year is essential to make up for decades of under-investment and neglect.
	"Over the 10-year period, this means public expenditure of over £22 billion on strategic roads; £33 billion on the railways and £51 billion on local transport. The plan is the first time ever that a Government have been willing to commit themselves to such a level of funding over a long period. And that funding is making and will continue to make a difference.
	"If you look at other countries successes in transport the common factor is sustained investment, year on year and decade after decade. That is why we remain committed to updating and rolling forward the plan in 2004 to coincide with the next public expenditure review. And that review will take account of progress so far and challenges that will have to be met in the years to 2015 and beyond. Such long-term commitment and planning is essential if we are to rebuild and maintain the transport infrastructure we need for continued growth and prosperity.
	"This report sets out what has been achieved in the first 18 months since the plan came into effect. As I told the House last week, our objective is to improve Britain's rail and road network. It is a balanced approach, with investment to tackle congestion, improve reliability and make journeys safer. And to do so in a way that is consistent with our wider social and environmental obligations.
	"I want to set out some of the key points. Last week, I announced major investment designed to tackle congestion and improve journey times. Schemes will range from major enhancements on some of our key strategic routes, for example the M1 and M6, as well as bypasses and smaller schemes to tackle bottlenecks. We have also introduced measures to better manage existing roads. I also announced further investment in local transport and light rail.
	"As the report makes clear, the latest analysis shows that there was more traffic in 2000 than had been thought. That, coupled with the fact that economic growth over the next 10 years is now projected to be higher than anticipated, means that the forecasts made two years ago almost certainly underestimated the future levels of congestion we are faced with.
	"Without the investment in the 10-year plan, congestion would have continued to rise unchecked. The report shows that not only will we stem that growth, but deliver considerable reductions in the levels of congestion we would otherwise have seen. In order to tackle congestion, it is necessary to tackle its causes. That is why we are spending more to deal with bottlenecks on the roads system and spending more on public transport.
	"Measures to tackle congestion are beginning to make an impact. Bus use nationally has begun to grow after years of decline and stagnation. Light rail use has grown by a third over the past two years. The number of rail passengers has increased by nearly a quarter since 1997.
	"We need to do more. All this will only be possible because of the commitment to sustained investment year-on-year, and I shall be announcing further measures next year. The House will also wish to know that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in deaths and serious accidents on the roads. And for children, there has been a 27 per cent reduction, which is a tribute to all those who have done so much to improve road safety.
	"On the railways, public expenditure is now estimated to be £33 billion compared to £29 billion 18 months ago. We are committed to sustaining this investment as it is essential to improve both reliability and safety. But it is also essential that the industry gets a grip of major projects. The public rightly expect us to ensure that their money is well spent and that there is rigorous control of costs.
	"Spending in the next few years will rise from £2.1 billion in 2001–02 to £4.3 billion in 2005–06, which, although £312 million less for the Strategic Rail Authority over the coming three years than was forecast earlier this year, is double what was being spent at the start of the plan. This investment will only deliver results if costs in the industry are brought under control. That is why Richard Bowker, the Chairman of the SRA, is quite right to insist that the railways industry gets a proper grip on its costs—something that was conspicuously absent in the past.
	"As I have said, the report shows that the railways are carrying nearly a quarter more people than 5 years ago. But we will only sustain that increase in use if we can show that the service is better and, crucially, more reliable. That needs more investment, but also better management of the existing network, which is what the SRA is providing. That is why the SRA is carrying out a review to make sure that the best use is made of existing railway capacity, that projects are more tightly managed and that costs are driven down.
	"As the report shows, there is now significant public investment going into the West Coast Main Line which will allow greater reliability. But only because the SRA and the industry showed its determination to exercise rigorous control of the project and its costs.
	"Progress is being made elsewhere too. There has been sustained investment year on year—over £1 billion worth of new rolling stock has been introduced since April 2001 with a further 2,100 vehicles on order. Ninety per cent of the first phase of the new Channel Tunnel rail link is now complete—the first major new rail line for over 100 years. There has been the installation of a new safety system—the train protection warning system—on around 70 per cent of the track and around 90 per cent of the passenger fleet. The power supply for London commuter trains has been upgraded. There has been more maintenance and more renewals.
	"There has been investment, yes. But, just as elsewhere, with investment must come reform. Every one of us knows that standards on our railways can be improved. This report shows that we are prepared to spend more, but in return the railway industry has to do far more to drive up standards and reliability. Our priority is to deliver safe and reliable transport that enables people and goods to move around the country as easily and efficiently as possible.
	"This plan sets out the investment to achieve that over a 10-year period. There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. Sustained investment is needed year on year and over many decades. We are committed to the long haul, to that sustained investment and improvements in services essential to our continued economic and social prosperity".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The report is called the "progress report". I have had a brief look at it and I have to say that perhaps it should be called the "lack of progress report". It represents the final nail in the coffin of John Prescott's 10-year transport plan. That plan is falling apart. Congestion is increasing; one in five trains is delayed; the Tube is in chaos and nationally bus use is falling. Even the Labour-dominated Transport Select Committee has condemned the plan as failing to provide a vision for a more equitable, safer and efficient transport system.
	A recent survey comparing us with Europe noted that the average British worker spends twice as long travelling to work in the morning as even his Italian counterpart. In the South East, we are faced with rail fare rises of up to 10 per cent. There will also be fewer trains. The excuse made by the Government and the Secretary of State is that having fewer trains might be more reliable. At the moment, we have a thoroughly illogical system. How can we possibly have a situation where Connex is fined £4.5 million one week for delays, and the following week is handed back £58 million because it is short of cash? That is extraordinary.
	I hope that the Government will persuade the Strategic Rail Authority to look at the terms on which the train operating companies have their licences renewed because the basis of making the licences short term is obviously having a major effect on the plans of those companies. Train operating companies have been a successful part of rail privatisation. The noble Lord knows—indeed, the Statement says—that passenger use has increased by 25 per cent since 1997.
	Efforts to cut congestion on the roads have failed miserably. The Government cancelled a large part of the road improvement plan that they inherited, with the result that we have chaos in transport. We know that train services could be cut by up to one-fifth next year and that train operating companies have been told to produce plans to run railways on 20 per cent less taxpayer subsidy. Richard Bowker, the Chairman of the SRA, has warned that the £33 billion promised over 10 years is running out and that expansion projects will have to be put on hold. He has admitted that many projects will have to be scaled back.
	To cap it all, the Government have announced an airports policy which will have to go back to square one. They lost a case in the High Court, in which the judge decided that it would be wrong to exclude Gatwick from the airport expansion consultation.
	Costs in the rail network have soared. Indeed, more money is being pumped into the industry now than under British Rail, but in many areas performance has deteriorated.
	The Government promised that they would tackle congestion and improve journey times for motorists. In fact, statistics show that car use has increased and that congestion has worsened. What is more, congestion has risen at a substantially higher rate—probably 10 times higher—than the rise in employment in this country. Highways Agency figures show that not one inch of new bypass was built anywhere in 2001. The Government cancelled bypass programmes when they came into power.
	Turning to London Underground, the PPP has still not started this month and the Secretary of State has said that the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London could be delayed by many months.
	The Minister's department comes up with surprising excuses. Today, I noticed that a spokesman cited the slow take-up by local authorities of the option of introducing congestion charges as one of the reasons for the continuing jams on major routes. I find that extraordinary. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that that is the department's policy. The introduction of congestion charges might affect congestion in cities, but the idea that it affects major routes is rather bizarre.
	The Statement reads:
	"economic growth over the next 10 years is now projected to be higher than anticipated".
	I ask: anticipated from when? Perhaps the Minister could explain how that forecast came about.
	The Government have made many promises, including another promise of funding for 10 years. However, we know that that is a plan, not a commitment. The dead hand of the Treasury hangs over that and it has no such thing as a 10-year commitment. It has only a short, two or three-year commitment.
	I said that the report indicated a lack of progress, but it shows one thing. I commend the Secretary of State for having faced the reality of the congestion in this country and the report finally buries the 10-year plan. It is an admission that the department and the Secretary of State, Mr Darling, have finally joined the real world.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am pleased to see the emphasis on getting value for money which is mentioned in the Statement. We should not measure success by the amount of money that is spent but on what that money buys.
	My comments are made in both anger and sorrow. I was bitterly opposed to the privatisation of the railways. But we lost that argument and I would describe what we now have as the Treasury or extreme free-market model. That is why when Railtrack was privatised Liberal Democrats said that we would take back a controlling interest in the company. And so did the Labour Party, but it did not fulfil that promise. The company, its consultants and its contractors ripped off—the Government have used that phrase—the public and the taxpayers, which culminated in the catastrophe at Hatfield and all that followed from it. There was an easily foreseen demise of that monstrous company.
	Since privatisation, infrastructure costs and delays have exploded and standards have fallen. The number of lawyers and accountants has multiplied, which has been matched by the demise of most of the operators and engineers in the business, who were much cheaper. What have the Government done? They have appointed a regulator, Tom Winsor, but he has failed to regulate at huge cost. The Strategic Rail Authority was created and it has an enormous number of staff—and consultants. There is a Commission for Integrated Transport, which the Government have studiously ignored. How much does the SRA cost?
	When money for the railways runs out, why is it always the passengers who must suffer? Fares are increased faster than inflation and services, which are already unpunctual and inferior on much of the system, deteriorate. If the Minister were to visit north-east England and see the rotten trains which run around Leeds, he would consider them unacceptable in London. They are almost Victorian in their antiquity.
	If one keeps a shop, an important lesson to learn is that one should be open for business even at the expense of the backroom staff. On our railways, it seems as though lawyers, accountants, consultants, maintenance contractors and bureaucrats flourish, while the money to run the trains runs out. Why is the axe not taken to the legions of people who do not run the trains? Is there any plan to reduce the costs of those people, or do we have to wait for the forthcoming regulatory review of traffic charges?
	Our fares are already the highest in western Europe. The contractual matrix of our railways is immensely complicated and expensive. Yet are there no plans to simplify it? We need fewer, simple, vertically integrated franchises which will be renewed if performance is satisfactory. I have repeatedly stated that we do not need a rail regulator. Safety regulation is overblown and unprofessional. Why are we still waiting for the Hatfield and Potters Bar accident reports?
	We have replaced a small team of professional regulators—the former military people who formed Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate—with an army of unaccountable bureaucrats, whether they are supervising their own standards, railway standards or Railtrack's standards. And I remind the Minister that Railtrack has 4,000 standards. An enormous number of people are needed to service the company, and that does not run the railway—it actually stops it running.
	I want to ask the Minister one further question. The Statement mentions the bus industry. The bus industry outside London is not growing; only by adding in London figures does one see a growth. Will the Minister please tell us, or perhaps he would care to write to me if he does not know, when we can expect to see bus lane enforcement by cameras extended beyond London? I have been promised that in Written Answers—the phrases vary—later in the year, in the autumn and at the end of the year, but we are getting perilously near to the point when a reply is due.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, perhaps I may—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I must first reply to the Front Benchers. I would rather not, given the qualified rapture with which the Statement was received. But I want to make it clear what the Statement amounts to.
	When asked Questions about progress on the 10-year plan, I have said in this House on a number of occasions in recent months that 18 months from the beginning of the plan was too early to make considered judgments. I still take that view. However, there was substantial pressure from another place, from the Transport Select Committee and from the Benches opposite to hear a progress report.
	That report is a good deal more detailed and people have not had time to read it, let alone to respond to it. I do not blame noble Lords opposite for that. However, there were two particular reasons for making such a Statement. The first reason was the recognition—I make the acknowledgement to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—that our targets for dealing with congestion were not being achieved. The Statement makes it clear that the figures we had when the 10-year plan was first produced under-estimated the level of congestion at that time. Subsequent figures have confirmed that and therefore that our targets were much more difficult to achieve.
	As a result, we have had to look again at our targets for congestion. We can say that without the 10-year plan congestion would increase considerably more than we intend and expect it to increase with the plan. That is not to say that we will be cutting congestion on all our roads. Congestion is a feature of a country such as ours which is densely populated and is intensely metropolitan in the sense that a large proportion of people live in and around the capital city. That is a fact of life.
	When we look again at our congestion targets, it is true to say that we have had more success in the economy than we expected. Gross domestic product has risen faster, as has in particular household disposable income. As a result, car ownership has risen faster than was expected. Congestion is the bad result of successful economic policies in that sense. That was one reason why it was thought appropriate to report to Parliament at such an early stage in the 10-year plan.
	The second reason was the huge upheaval which was forced to take place on the railways. With the failure of Railtrack, which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, so graphically described, it was clear that something had to be done. The administration for Railtrack and the creation of Network Rail is what had to be done. The work that is being done now by the SRA and by Richard Bowker, the chairman, in getting a grip on the cost of rail investment is another good reason for reporting to Parliament.
	Mr Bowker has not attempted to mince his words. He said that if things go on as they are and there is no more effective cost control than we have, then certainly some of the projects in the programme will be unaffordable. However, he is determined, as we are, that we should get a grip on costs. The intention of today's statement is to make it clear that our commitment to investment in railways, roads, and local public transport is undimmed as a result of either of these matters.
	It has to be recognised that Hatfield caused huge disruption on the railway and enormous extra expense in bringing the rail system up to anywhere near an acceptable standard. It was clear that it was not of such a standard. We therefore volunteered to lay these not particularly welcome facts before Parliament; it was, I believe, the right thing to do. It is not the case, however, that we are making a final judgment on all the aspects of the 10-year plan. I have schedules in front of me of all of the targets in the plan and how far we are achieving them. There are many examples of successful progress towards that plan. The Statement includes, for example, figures on road safety, on deaths and serious injuries on the roads, where we are on target to meet the plan. The time for that will be in 2004 when we have a proper opportunity to consider a substantial part of the plan and to roll the plan forward for a new 10-year period. That is the time at which the judgment of Parliament and the country will be due.
	I do not know some of the specific answers—for example, on bus lane enforcement. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right that bus use is not growing outside London. Accident reports are a matter for those independent bodies from whom we have commissioned them. We cannot control their timetable.
	I hope, from what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is saying and from what he said about privatisation, that he is supportive of what we have done in setting up Network Rail. From his previous comments, I believe that he is.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right in saying that our travel-to-work times are very long. That is partly because we are a metropolitan country, unlike Germany or Italy for example. In France, which is also metropolitan, the investment made over decades is certainly showing results.
	The licence renewal decisions have been taken in the light of the serious risk of disruption that would have taken place if there had been an early ending of licence. Those decisions are taken on very strict conditions.
	I am not clear in my note about what the noble Lord said about the airport documents. I shall have to read what he said and write to him about it. I have already responded to the question on congestion charges, and I believe that I have responded realistically and honestly.

Lord Jones: My Lords, does the Minister know that for a generation the people of Wales have felt an absence of fair play over investment in the railway system? Does he believe that the Statement presages substantial investment in the Holyhead-Crewe-London Euston line? Is he able to say whether the Virgin West Coast Main Line rolling stock, the Pendolino trains, will be dedicated to that route ? If he cannot provide a specific amount of the £34 billion earmarked for rail investment in Wales, will he to write to me with such a sum?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall have to write to my noble friend. That is not a matter covered in the progress report.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I certainly welcome the good intentions of the Government to reduce congestion and to improve the road system. The list of projects in the report is formidable but I am sure that, for each project in the plan, all noble Lords will have three or four schemes that are not in the plan.
	I ask the Minister one question. Have the Government ever seriously considered an outer ring road round London, perhaps as a toll road, to relieve the congested and often gridlocked M25 and, if not, why not?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not to my knowledge. I do not think this or any preceding government have considered that. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, will know that substantial expenditure on the M25 is included in the 10-year programme.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, may I press the Minister harder on the West Coast Main Line on which many of us commute every week? When shall we see the investment to complete the upgrading of the track and when can we expect some new rolling stock between London and Scotland?
	Secondly, will he bear in mind that the main artery by road from London to Scotland is the M6? Only six miles of that route, between Carlisle and the Scottish border, is not motorway. When can we expect that to be upgraded to motorway standard?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we took a decision on the West Coast Main Line which attracted a good deal of flak: that, rather than rely on weekend and night working throughout the upgrading of the line, we would face the unpopularity of closing part of the line for periods of several weeks, starting next year. That certainly will speed up what had been unacceptably slow progress.
	I think it would be unwise for me to go further than the information which is already in the progress report about completion dates, but they will certainly come about quicker than would have been the case.
	There is no information that I can immediately find relating to the M6. I shall have to write to the noble Lord.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, with the best will in the world, the Conservative Opposition have not advanced one constructive argument for a coherent transport policy? Does he not agree that all modes of transport have to conform to such a policy?
	Does he also agree that the Statement did not deal with air transport? Is it not internationally unacceptable that post-11th September—and I speak here as the president of BALPA—allies of the United States have been given huge subsidies by the United States Government? Does that not give them unacceptable advantages so far as European traffic is concerned? What are the Government doing about that?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before I reply to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I have the information to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monro, in regard to the M6. I believe that he is referring to the Carlisle-to-Guardsmill section.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, yes.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the expected delivery date is 2007–08.
	Turning to reply to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, the question of our negotiations with the United States Government and their aviation authorities is not covered in the progress report. The only aspects of air transport covered in the progress report are air traffic control, airport policy and airport improvements. I can assure my noble friend that the issues he raised are being covered in the ongoing discussions we are having with the American authorities.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that building more roads and widening existing ones will simply add to congestion unless these measures are accompanied by road pricing and traffic congestion measures? Is not the lesson we have learnt from previous road-building practices that it takes only about one year for new capacity to be entirely used up by new traffic?
	As to the railways, is my noble friend aware that yesterday Virgin ran its first passenger train with the Pendolino stock from London to Manchester, completing the journey in two hours and nine minutes in one direction and two hours and six minutes in the other? I should declare an interest in that I was an invited guest on the train. Does my noble friend agree that this is undoubtedly an indication that at last the problems of the West Coast Main Line are being addressed and that there is hope that passengers will get the improved services to which my noble friend Lord Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Monro, referred?
	Does my noble friend also accept that the commitment to better value for money and greater reliability that the Secretary of State has shown in his Statement today is shared entirely by Mr Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority? Can my noble friend confirm that when the SRA delivers its case for rail in 2004, the arguments it is likely to contain about the industry's long-term needs for investment will be sympathetically considered in the light of the 2004 spending review?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all kinds of wild statements have been made about the supposed shift from rail to road in the Government's policies. The figures given in the Statement, and certainly those in the report, make it clear that we are not in any sense returning to the policy of predict and provide that my noble friend Lord Faulkner is rightly attacking. We recognise that there are certain pinch points which cause exceptional congestion and which can be tackled by judicious road provision, but this is not the U-turn described in the press.
	I have been too busy reading government papers to look at the newspapers and I did not know about the Pendolino train runs. I am glad to hear it. I can certainly confirm that it is Mr Bowker's intention, with the Government's support, to gain control over costs in investment in the railways. Without in any way seeking to anticipate the 2004 spending review, it is quite clear that his success in doing so will determine how much will be achieved from investment in railways from 2004 onwards.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned road congestion several times, as did my noble friend Lord Faulkner. Has the time not come to start looking at urban road charging as a means of reducing congestion? My noble friend announced the building of some new roads, which will be welcome to many people, but I am sure that he will agree that the congestion figures will go up and up. Is it not time at least to start looking at introducing inter- urban road charges as a means of restraining the unfettered growth that might otherwise occur?
	My second question relates to rail and freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. The Statement did not mention any kind of freight. Freight operators are concerned about road congestion and the working time directive, which would indicate that they are quite keen to transfer freight to rail. My noble friend did not mention the targets in the original 10-year plan for a growth of 50 per cent in rail passenger numbers and 80 per cent in rail freight volumes. Are the Government still sticking to these targets? If not, what are the new targets?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, inter-city road charging is not a matter for the progress report. I am not saying that that issue will be ruled out from consideration when we come to the full review of the 10-year plan in 2004, but clearly it is a policy matter which has not been included in what is essentially a factual progress report of what has happened in the past 18 months.
	As to the rail freight targets, we believe that it should be possible to increase the market share to 10 per cent by 2010 from 7 per cent now—which is indeed, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, an 80 per cent increase in rail freight—provided that the rail freight companies can deliver improvements in performance and efficiency. There has already been a 7 per cent increase in 2001–02 compared with 2000–01.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some noble Lords feel that it has been a valuable exercise to have a progress report on the 10-year plan? Indeed, it demonstrates the importance of the bi-partisan support three years ago for the 10-year plan. Clearly events change the context in which a 10-year plan has to be rolled forward, but we are now in the position where, against this framework, we can see some of the things that have gone right and some of the things that have gone wrong. If we had not had a 10-year plan we would be floundering around not quite knowing which way we were going. The 10-year plan provides a benchmark against which we can see, for example, that we have got our inputs right but that our outputs are not necessarily right at the moment, and how we have to improve standards in rolling forward the 10-year plan.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right to remind the House that the 10-year plan was introduced less than two years ago with all-party support. All parties therefore should be interested in ensuring that the 10-year plan succeeds, rather than the more negative response we heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, today. This is very much an interim report which was called for because of specific circumstances. I am sure that what my noble friend Lord Lea said will be applicable to the review in 2004.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, before we go further, can the Minister give an explanation in regard to the national guidance notes, the framework for guidance? A rather intriguing situation has arisen. When Hansard sought to ensure that I had been properly quoted in the previous debate, it produced a copy of the framework for guidance that it is working to, which is in the Printed Paper Office, dated 15th November 2002. I have been working from a framework for guidance which I got from the web because it was not otherwise available dated the same date, 15th November 2002. These two sets of guidance notes are different both in format and content. I have taken a long look at them during the adjournment and I think I am correct in suggesting that the copy to which I have been referring is the correct draft guidance. If that is the case, we have the wrong draft guidance in the Printed Paper Office. As this goes to the heart of what we are all debating, can we please have an explanation?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it would have been very helpful if the noble Baroness had given me notice of her question. That is the normal practice. I cannot give her an answer because I have not seen the document that she has obtained from the web. I can only say that I will investigate the matter and let her know.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are all suffering from a lack of notice. I have hardly had time to seek out the Minister while I have been trying to understand, working with Hansard, why I have one document and Hansard has another. In the circumstances, because the support systems were not available, I had neither the time, the opportunity nor the wherewithal to notify the Minister.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, in those circumstances, how can we discuss a Bill when we do not know what we are talking about? I totally concede that this is not the first occasion on which that has happened in your Lordships' House, but perhaps it would be advisable to wait for five minutes while the noble Baroness's advisers get their acts together?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am perfectly happy to adjourn for that purpose. However, I do not consider it to be necessary, and I should like to discover whether the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is necessary. Quite frankly, we do not need the framework on the guidance in front of us while we debate the next group of amendments. We have already spent a great deal of time on the Bill and are far behind the point that we had hoped to reach. We should now make progress. While we debate the next group of amendments, I will ask my officials to consider the copy that the noble Baroness has obtained from the web.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am content with that. Notwithstanding our best efforts, we have clearly taken longer than most of us had hoped, and it is laudable that so many noble Lords have taken part in this important debate. From Her Majesty's Opposition Benches, I am certainly content to accept that we should not adjourn, but may we please have an explanation at the earliest convenience?

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I echo the noble Baroness's words. We absolutely agree and would not want to adjourn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House again in Committee on Clause 4.
	[Amendments Nos. 69 to 72 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 3, line 12, after "children" insert "and other vulnerable persons"

Baroness Buscombe: This amendment seeks to make a short but important point. Clause 4(2)(d) states that one of the licensing objectives will be
	"the protection of children from harm".
	Within that objective, my amendment would include "other vulnerable persons" and seeks to probe the issue of whether other classes of vulnerable persons may require similar special protection in the context of licensing and licensed premises, one example of which could be elderly persons. I am sure that other Members of the Committee are able to suggest other particularly vulnerable groups that would merit similar protection.
	I have no doubt that during the extensive preparation of the Bill by both the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government have considered whether, in addition to children, other groups might merit special mention in the licensing objectives. They have evidently decided that none do. My amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to place on record the Government's thinking on that point. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment and have only one question to ask on this group of amendments concerning children; namely, whether the Government will still make provision for landlords, at their own discretion, to allow children, accompanied or unaccompanied, to be present on licensed premises.

Baroness Blackstone: The four licensing objectives in Clause 4 were developed after extensive, detailed consultation with all stakeholders and a lengthy review of the existing law, conducted between 1998 and 1999. The result was a clear focus on the prevention of disorder and disturbance; the assurance of public safety in places where people gather together for leisure purposes; and the protection of children from physical, moral and psychological harm. Amendment No. 73 seeks to add to the objective relating to the protection of children, "other vulnerable persons".
	Perhaps we may leave the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, until we debate the group of amendments that focuses on children.
	It is very difficult to define the term "other vulnerable persons". I am not quite sure how the noble Baroness would define it. For example, does it include people suffering from mental illness or from alcoholism? Children can be recognised and identified by licensees and other staff in licensed premises. Many now carry proof-of-age cards. But can we realistically expect a licensee or a member of his staff to recognise a sober alcoholic who may be tempted to fall off the wagon? It is a very fine aspiration, but it is not a duty that could be imposed on a licence-holder. Therefore, it would be difficult—

The Earl of Onslow: I thank the Minister for giving way, but she is not answering the question. There is a duty on the licensing authority to consider what conditions it should take into account when it issues a licence. It is not a question whether the publican in the Pig and Whistle in Scunthorpe knows the difference between a drunken paraplegic and a sober professor. It is the duty of the licensing authority. Will the Minister please stick to the point?

Baroness Blackstone: I am doing my best to answer what I understand to be the noble Baroness's amendment, which is to add "other vulnerable persons" to the group. The licensing authority will not be able to decide whether or not it makes sense to grant a licence on the basis that there may be a slight possibility that other vulnerable persons may turn up in any particular licensed premises. I understand that this amendment seeks to protect vulnerable people by the way in which the licensing law actually operates and its effect on the licensee. I assume that that is the point of this amendment. If I am wrong about that, I apologise.
	I end by saying that, in framing the objectives, the Committee must focus on the need to translate them into meaningful steps that can be taken by the licensee. They should not be rather vague aspirations, but matters that can become the terms and conditions to be attached by the licensing authority to any licence that is granted to the licensee. I hope that that makes the position a little clearer.
	The Bill already provides that a drunken person cannot be sold more alcohol. However, it is both difficult and impractical to have an objective that seeks to go beyond that provision, no matter how well-meaning the intention; and I entirely accept that it is a good intention. The purpose of the objective of protecting children from harm is very clearly focused on a well-defined group—children under 18 years of age—but that cannot be said of the concept of "vulnerable persons".
	Having explained the problems that the Government see, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I entirely agree with her: this is an important objective. We are pleased that the protection of children from harm is one of the key objectives for the licensing authority to bear in mind.
	As the Minister has said, the amendment points up the difficult responsibility that will rest with licensing authorities when coming to terms with their objectives and deciding what is best, on balance, for the various licensed premises within their locality. Our aim was to gain clarity as to whether the Government thought it important to focus on children, on those who have difficulties with alcohol or, as I suggested, on elderly persons.
	It is helpful to have the Minister's response on record so that licensing authorities can appreciate the parameters within which they are working. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved amendment No. 74:
	Page 3, line 12, leave out "from harm"

Baroness Buscombe: This, again, is a probing amendment. It relates to Clause 4(2)(d) but deals with a different point. We are seeking to understand the meaning of,
	"the protection of children from harm"—
	this being one of the four licensing objectives to which licensing authorities must constantly refer when carrying out their functions. We want to understand exactly what kinds of harm the Government have in mind.
	We see from paragraph 38 of the Explanatory Notes that the Government do not intend this provision to apply in the context of physical safety. In a piece of drafting which is typically obtuse, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states:
	"The fourth licensing objective relates to harm to children beyond matters relating to physical safety".
	It does not, however, go on to state the kinds of harm that the Government have in mind. Do they have in mind the harm that may be caused by alcohol; or by passive smoking, so that licensed premises may be required to install smoke extractors or provide non-smoking areas? Do they mean the protection of children from individuals who might seek to cause them harm? The Minister may say that the Government envisage all these factors falling within the definition of "harm".
	How do the Government envisage individual local authorities interpreting such a broad provision? Is there not at least some scope for widely differing interpretations of the law because of the extremely broad nature of the drafting, so that something that is deemed harmful to children by one licensing authority will not be deemed harmful by another.
	I am not for one minute saying that we should not take the protection of children into account. I am inviting the Minister to set out more fully the Government's position on the kinds of harm that they believe are relevant in this context.
	I should also appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why, as stated in the Explanatory Notes, the Government do not believe that children's physical safety should come within the concept of "harm", and why, if that is so, it is not made plain on the face of the Bill. The only reference to it occurs in the Explanatory Notes.
	I refer to a letter dated 13th November 2002 from the Secretary of State. It begins, "Dear colleagues", and states:
	"I expect the Bill to deliver inter alia reductions in under-age purchase and consumption of alcohol and the long-term damage that does to children in terms of educational attainment, poor health, job prospects and the propensity to commit crime".
	We are pleased that the Bill is supposed to deliver this; but the question is: how? These are all aspects of "harm".
	We believe that the present law concerning the consumption of alcohol by children is deeply confusing to parents. But how does liberalising the law with regard to children protect them from harm? I beg to move.

Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may refer to a briefing note sent by ACPO to a number of noble Lords prior to Second Reading which makes specific reference to children. ACPO expressed concern that exposing children at what is a crucial stage in their development to an environment in which drink is consumed might be likely to lead them towards a drinking culture—as ACPO expresses it—which the Government's forthcoming alcohol strategy may wish to target. So there is an inconsistency in government policy here. On the one hand, we are moving slowly towards a strategy for reducing the harm that alcohol does; on the other, we propose to make it easier for children to enter such establishments and to be drawn into a drinking culture.
	ACPO goes on to set out its serious concern about the position of unaccompanied young people in licensed premises, as they will be in what is essentially an adult environment and will be exposed to moral harm and danger. That is one answer to the question put by the noble Baroness. It is not simply a question of the consumption of alcohol but of the uninhibited conduct into which young people may be led as a result of consuming too much alcohol.
	ACPO states that it is aware that some European countries have a relaxed attitude to children on licensed premises, but it goes on to point out that in Europe there is a completely different approach to drinking. It says that although it may be beneficial for us to move towards a similar environment in this country, habits are deeply ingrained here and it is unlikely that we shall see a sudden transformation as a result of the Government's licensing policy into the kind of drinking culture that prevails in, for example, France or Italy.
	While on the subject of harm, perhaps I may refer to a study that was undertaken in Liverpool between one of the foremost clubs there and the accident and emergency department in the renowned local hospital, where patients were brought from a particular nightclub. It was found that, among 777 patients included in the study, assault accounted for most presentations—57 per cent; lacerations were the most common injuries; and alcohol was the most common intoxicant associated with attendance at the A&E department. So when we talk about "harm", we are talking about a whole range of possibilities that may affect young people as a result of encouraging them to take part in the late-night drinking culture that the Bill introduces.
	We can already see the effects of such a culture in London. As I recounted on the first day in Committee, I spent a night going round central London with the police, first from the West End Central police station and, secondly, from the Charing Cross station and observing the behaviour of young people on the streets in the neighbourhoods of Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, Soho, Covent Garden and Trafalgar Square. It would be extremely difficult for anyone, whether a licensee or the police, to know the age of certain young people, particularly girls dressed over their age. I should not like to be in the position of a licensee attempting to distinguish between someone who is just under 18 and someone who is just over 18. The literature shows that it is common for under-age drinking to occur in establishments such as these clubs, where the lighting is very poor and the activities are so frenetic that it would be impossible as a practical matter for the person serving the drinks—

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I support what he says. Most of the young people concerned have false identification, which can be bought on the Internet. So even if asked for identification, they have something to show. I agree with the noble Lord about young people being overdressed, and with all his other points. The poor licensee has the worst problem, as he is offered false identification.

Lord Avebury: The noble Lord makes a good point. The Portman Group has introduced a scheme to issue proof-of-age cards to young people. Does the Minister know whether those cards are used? Has she discussed it with club operators? Has she talked to them about the difficulties, and their problems, in preventing underage drinking? Does she know about the false identity cards that some people carry, or have those matters been left to chance? We are exposing young people to considerable harm of various kinds. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment to enable us to highlight the problem.

The Earl of Onslow: I have considerable sympathy with the Government on this issue, because it is a difficult one. There is a culture north of Calais or thereabouts to go out and get absolutely rat-arsed, to give a frequently used expression. One need only watch television programmes featuring 18 year-olds in Ibiza to see that their sole aim is to get into the state that I referred to—it is sufficient to use the expression once; twice would be insensitive.
	How do we adapt? I do not know. Garibaldi had British volunteers who all behaved terribly badly, so he sent them home. He could not stand them getting into the state that I referred to. The soldiers in the 1914 war, when they went on leave if they were lucky enough to survive, drank wine in a tankard in the belief that it was a pint of beer. There is a culture in Nordic countries of getting completely sloshed.
	Harm must be defined. Licensing authorities must take that into account. I accept that I am being beastly to the noble Baroness by taking the issue beyond the context of the clause. But those aspects must be borne in mind. Frankly, I do not know how to. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, brought them up in a better informed, and perhaps less flowery, way than I did.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to everyone who participated in this short debate for raising an issue that concerns us all. The Government's licensing objective in Clause 4(2)(d), which focuses on children, has been carefully drafted. It is intended to assure the protection of children from physical, moral and psychological harm. The physical safety of children is covered by Clause 4(2)(b), which relates to public safety in relation to licensed premises.
	This amendment focuses on the particular needs of children. I share the views of all noble Lords who participated and emphasise that we need to be concerned not only with children's physical safety but their moral and psychological health. Alcohol consumption is an important issue. This is a liberalising measure to create a healthier environment for children on licensed premises. The Bill tightens significantly the law on alcohol consumption by minors. We have offered greater access, with a strict prohibition on consumption anywhere on licensed premises, which is not the case at present. An exception applies where 16 to 18 year-olds, accompanied by adults, consume alcohol at a meal. Alcohol consumption by children is strictly controlled by the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow: I am a seeker of information. The word "meal" summons up a picture of parents and kiddies dining at a restaurant table. Down the line, could the definition of a meal broaden to include stuffing a sandwich into one's face while sitting on a bar stool?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am well aware that the definition of a meal may be in the eyes of the partaker. Let me be clear: we are talking about the judgments taken by a licensing authority about the basis on which children are consuming food in a pub. Clearly, the licensing authorities would not be satisfied that a packet of crisps is a meal. They will have guidance; they will be concerned about children's health and will be expected to set a framework in which a meal means sitting down with adults in civilised circumstances for a knife-and-fork meal.
	That is the premise on which we seek to tackle the issue that, rightly, has been identified. We all have anxieties about our stand-up-and-drink culture. I am glad that the culture has not been apostrophised in this debate as being British. It is wider. The phrase "Nordic" may not be all-encompassing, but we know that the culture obtains differently in northern Europe than in the south. We are all aware of this feature.
	How should we improve young people's approach to alcohol? Surely by seeking to mirror, in many ways, the successful, different culture of countries which we admire where children accompanied by adults drink alcohol at meals on licensed premises that are part of a considerably more civilised framework than ours at present. We emphasise that we seek to ensure that all aspects of children's health—physical, moral and psychological—should be taken into account. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is. Its wording should be retained. If we leave open the wording as the amendment suggests, we leave open the potential for damaging uncertainty in the interpretation of the Bill. But all noble Lords have emphasised how important it is that it be clearly established, clearly understood and part of the framework within which licences are granted.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said about identifying young people's age. That problem is always with us. In the United States, age identification must be shown and is often challenged by barmen. We often hear stories of how rigorous the system is. Although it is rigorous, it does not protect against the problem of document forgery, which was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. We recognise that the forgery of documents to adopt a false identity is a difficult problem for police in the most stringent circumstances, such as access to a country, let alone seeking to buy a drink in a bar. However, the Government welcome the identity card launched by the Portman Group, which is a signal of an earnest intention to try to prevent direct access to alcohol by young people who know that they are breaking the law at the time of purchase. We commend that move.
	The noble Baroness said that her amendment was a probing device. I can reassure her that one of the four objectives in the licensing arrangements under the Bill is the protection of children from harm. We are expressing that aim both precisely and in the widest possible terms, not just in terms of physical safety. We bear in mind not only all the representations that have been made to us by a whole range of organisations concerned with the welfare of children but also those made in tonight's debate. On that basis, and with those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Avebury: If they really want to prevent harm to young people, why have not the Government included in the Bill provision for the compulsory production of proof-of-age cards based on biodata in exactly the same way as has been done in the case of asylum seekers? The latter all possess identity cards, which give them access to benefits under the supplementary benefits system. We are all concerned about the harm that may be caused to children through being able to enter establishments and purchase alcohol when they are under 18. Therefore, as the technology exists to prevent that happening, why is there no such provision in the Bill?

The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may assist the Minister. It seems to me to be very simple. We are saying that children should not be allowed to drink alcohol under the age of 18. Therefore, they must have an identity card to show that they are under that age. The whole object of the child is to persuade the barman that he is over the age of 18. If he is over 18, he can say, "I don't have an identity card. Therefore, I do not need to be banned from drinking because I am over 18". It is a different situation from that of an immigrant; it is a totally different concept and does not help the Minister at all.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not seeking to arbitrate between two conflicting views on the Opposition Benches. Perhaps I may make the obvious point. The Licensing Bill is scarcely a Bill through which we would introduce the whole issue and concept of identity cards, upon which there are many divisions in our society as regards their merits. Indeed, I should think that there are probably many divisions on the Liberal Democrat Benches regarding the desirability of identity cards.
	I was not seeking to try to introduce a national system of identity cards for children under the age of 18; I was seeking to commend the voluntary moves by the Portman Group to address aspects of the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, rightly pointed out, there are always difficulties with this kind of exercise. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that if we were to go down the road of dealing with the real issues surrounding the concept of identity cards, we would do so through a separate piece of legislation introduced by the Home Office—a department for which I do not have responsibility. That is my response to the noble Lord.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I believe that I have bad news for everyone in this Chamber; indeed, news about which my noble friend Lord Hodgson is already well aware and to which he referred earlier. Probably all children and young people aged between 14 and 15 know exactly what they need to do to obtain a fake identity card. In fact, almost all the premises that they enter quite sensibly and quite rightly ask for some form of identification. It is not something that is peculiar to the United States; it is commonplace and common practice in this country. Publicans are doing all that they can to work within the law. On a nightly basis, they have great difficulty in discriminating between young people on the question of age. I have a daughter aged 15 who could easily pass as a mature 21 year-old. She tells me that she and others ought to have identity cards. It is a status symbol, as much as anything else, to have an ID card that one can buy through the Internet.
	There is a problem to be addressed. It is one of the reasons for raising the issue. Consumption of alcohol by the young is not, I fear, covered in the Bill. I have every sympathy, as I believe is the case with all noble Lords, with what the Government are seeking to achieve in this legislation. We want liberalisation of our licensing laws. In fact, I should probably declare an interest here in that my father was a wine merchant for 43 years. His belief was, and still rightly remains, that young people should be encouraged to drink, albeit in small quantities, from a fairly young age, as we were. I believe that that is right. I understand that that is what the Government are seeking to achieve. However, that was experienced in our own home where it was measured and carefully considered.
	We are talking about children and young people being allowed to enter pubs and licensed premises—perhaps I should say "hang out"—unaccompanied. Yes, I understand that the idea is to help change the culture of going out to get drunk. But our concern is that this approach may not achieve that aim. Behind this probing amendment is the concern that we are giving local authorities an enormous responsibility under these provisions. They will, of course, ably accept and take on such responsibility; but when things go wrong, as I am sure they might, this will rebound on local authorities. Therefore, it is only right that they should have as much information from the Government and as much understanding of the parameters as possible.
	Local authorities should also be aware of what it is that they are supposed to achieve to ensure that licensed premises within their localities are doing the right thing by local residents, by the industry and by children. That is the reason for tabling this probing amendment. I do not wish to take the matter further. We are concerned for the future, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 37 minutes past eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Access to Justice Act 1999 (Solicitors' Practising Certificates) Order 2002

Lord Bassam of Brighton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I should also declare an interest as my partner is a solicitor in practice.
	It is proposed that this instrument be made in exercise of the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by Section 47(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 to amend Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974. The order is subject to affirmative resolution by virtue of Section 47(2)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999.
	Section 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974 gives the Law Society the power to require solicitors to hold a practising certificate in order to practise. Section 11(1) of the Solicitors Act 1974 provides that the Law Society may charge a fee for the issuing of practising certificates. Section 11(3) of the Act provides that all moneys raised by the issuing of practising certificates,
	"shall be applied in such manner as the Society may think fit for the purpose of the Society, including facilitating the acquisition of legal knowledge".
	The purpose of the order is to ensure that the application of fees raised by the Law Society from compulsory subscriptions is, unlike hitherto, restricted to those purposes which the Law Society performs in the public interest, and from which both the public and the Government benefit.
	In seeking approval to this order, I make it clear that the Government believe that it is right that a professional body should be able to spend money generated from compulsory subscriptions on certain activities only. However, by the same context, the Government have no wish whatever to stifle the many useful functions in the public interest which the Law Society currently performs, and from which both the public and the Government benefit.
	The Lord Chancellor made this clear to Parliament during the passage of the Access to Justice Act when he said: "'practice support' or practice management and the 'raising and maintenance of standards' will be covered by compulsory fees . . . These activities are entirely compatible with the role of the regulatory body".—[Official Report, 14/7/99; col. 458.]
	Section 47(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides that the Law Society should be restricted in its application of fees raised from the issuing of practising certificates to,
	"(a) the purposes of the regulation, education and training of solicitors and those wishing to become solicitors, or (b) both those purposes and such other purposes as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate".
	Proposals made to the Lord Chancellor by the Law Society have been considered by the Legal Services Consultative Panel. The panel recommended that the wording proposed by the Law Society should be adopted in any order made under Section 47(1) of the 1999 Act.
	The Lord Chancellor has in turn considered the Law Society's proposals and the advice given to him by the Legal Services Consultative Panel. He has also been very diligent and taken account of the desirability of approving purposes for the Law Society which are broadly similar to those already approved in respect of the General Council of the Bar.
	The Lord Chancellor has concluded that, subject to a number of drafting changes, the Law Society's proposals should remain essentially unchanged. Those proposals have subsequently been agreed by the Law Society and the Master of the Rolls. The order now before the House would therefore amend Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 by specifying revised purposes for which the Law Society may apply any funds raised from the issuing of practising certificates.
	The revised purposes are: the regulation, accreditation, education and training of solicitors and those wishing to become solicitors, including the maintaining and raising of their professional standards and giving advice on practice management and practical support for solicitors' practice; the participation by the Law Society in law reform and the legislative process; the provision by solicitors, and those wishing to become solicitors, of free legal services to the public; the promotion of the protection by law of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the promotion by the Law Society of professional interests through discussion with, and participation in the activities of, relevant national and international bodies, governments and the legal professions of other jurisdictions.
	It is my view that all of these activities, which are already undertaken by the Law Society on the basis of subscriptions from its members, are useful functions, clearly in the public interest. It would, of course, continue to be open to the Law Society to pursue other, representative activities provided that it does so on the basis of funds raised from other sources.
	In my view, the provisions of this order amending Section 11(3) of the Solicitors Act 1974 are compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Since an amendment of this nature, adding to the purposes for which fees might be raised by the issuing of practising certificates, was anticipated during the Access to Justice Act 1999 implementation debates, and since Section 47(1) makes specific provision for the exercise of these amending powers, I invite the House to approve the order.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, all the purposes set out in Article 2 of the order seem to be wholly appropriate purposes for the Law Society to spend the money it raises from fees for practising certificates. There is, of course, a question as to whether there are any further purposes on which it might also be appropriate to spend money, but the Law Society made it clear in the brief which it circulated that this order corresponds very closely to its own proposal. In those circumstances, it seems that there is very little to be said other than that I am happy to support the order.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for such a careful and comprehensive explanation of the order. I do indeed recall our debate on the Access to Justice Bill, as it then was, in 1999, when we pressed the Government to ensure that any regulations should be by affirmative order. So this is an important opportunity to look at what the Government are proposing. This also gives us the opportunity to look at the overall regulatory framework governing the legal profession and at the Access to Justice Act itself and the way in which it is working.
	First, however, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to be praised for closely following the Law Society's own suggestion on the terms of the order, which will enable the society properly to carry out its important regulatory activities while at the same time continuing to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms. In view of the overall debate about standards in the legal profession, I would strongly urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the core values of solicitors—independence of advice, integrity and the avoidance of conflicts of interest—must be preserved.
	I turn for a moment to the framework within which the order is set out. A number of well argued responses, in particular one from the Law Society itself, were made to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper entitled In the Public Interest? As the president of the Law Society, Carolyn Kirby, has warned, client protection must be at the heart of any changes, and choice must not come at the expense of quality and access to justice. Currently, however, a shadow of uncertainty hangs over the legal profession, caused by some wide-ranging and fundamental proposals. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will move swiftly to lift the shadow of uncertainty. It would be helpful if the Minister, if he felt able to do so, could give us at least an indication of the timetable by which the Lord Chancellor intends to proceed.
	I turn to access to justice itself. This morning, there was a very worrying report in the Daily Telegraph that the cost of the compensation culture, which in many ways has been exacerbated by introduction of the new no win, no fee arrangements, now amounts to £10,000 million a year. That is an alarming figure. If access to justice is to be meaningful, we really do need to ensure that steps are taken to improve access.
	In our debates on the Access to Justice Bill, I recall the criticism, particularly from noble and learned Lords, and especially from the Cross Benches, about the introduction of the new no win, no fee arrangements with virtually no research, combined with a lack of proper resources for the civil justice reforms. I believe that those arrangements have been introduced at a very high price.
	I praise—as I have on previous occasions—our reforming Lord Chancellor. However, I urge the Government to go back to the three Rs, as reform is truly successful only when it is preceded by proper research and when sufficient resources are made available to make the new system work. So reform, research and resources are a proper prescription. I recall hearing a very convincing speech last week by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, in the Second Reading in this Chamber of the Courts Bill, in which he stressed that there was a serious lack of resources to enable access to justice to work.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, declared an interest, I should remind noble Lords that I am senior partner at Beachcroft Wansbroughs. That firm undertakes a great deal of work which closely mirrors the access to justice provisions. However, I feel strongly that the no win, no fee supermarket mentality combined with the virtual overnight abolition of civil legal aid has been a bad deal for the consumer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who knows this subject very well indeed, that the public must have access to legal services which are reliable, trustworthy, good value and, above all, a model of excellence. In signifying our agreement to the order I hope that the noble Lord will respond to the points that I raised.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their kind and generous contributions and in particular for their broad agreement with what is proposed.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for skilfully travelling slightly wider than the remit of the order. He is right to praise my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who has achieved many great reforms during his period in office and will continue to do so. The order ensures that the Law Society can carry out the valuable educational work to which the noble Lord referred. He is right to remind us of the importance and the value of the three Rs of reform, research and resources. It is right to place on record the fact that the Government have rigorously followed those three Rs in this field. We have rightly been praised for our reforming programme.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has a longer experience of government than I and will be aware of the importance of ensuring that policies are well researched before they reach the statute book. At all times we must be mindful of resources. The Government have allocated many resources to the area of public law. We recognise the importance of resources as a means of enabling people to gain access to justice.
	I agreed with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the compensation culture, although one should always be a little wary of believing everything that one reads in the Daily Telegraph other than the sports pages, which are undoubtedly excellent.
	I turn to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the timetable for the consultation paper. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the consultation period concluded on 22nd November this year. We need to analyse the contributions and take some care in planning our response to them. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the measure needs to be well researched and factually based. We intend to issue a response in the spring of next year and a report setting out subsequent proposals in the summer. Although that may lead to a period of uncertainty it should not last too long. The issues which have been raised in the public interest merit full and careful consideration. I wish to put that point on the record. I am most grateful for the contributions that have been made to the debate. I trust that the House is satisfied that the order is satisfactory.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.37 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 7.54 to 8.37 p.m.]

Licensing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
	Before I finally move that Motion, I shall respond to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the guidance framework. The correct framework is the one that the noble Baroness has been using, which I am glad to say is on the website. That version was also distributed at the all-party briefing meeting on 21st November and was sent to the noble Baroness by officials when the Bill was introduced. Unfortunately, a slightly earlier draft of the framework was placed in the Printed Paper Office in error. It was not significantly different, but I apologise for the fact that an incorrect version was put in the Printed Paper Office by mistake. That has now been rectified; the wrong version has been torn up and shredded, and there are now plenty of copies of the right version in the Printed Paper Office.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House again in Committee on Clause 4.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 75:
	Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) the protection of the environment"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80.
	These are probing amendments that seek to establish why the Government do not view the protection of the environment as an appropriate issue for consideration in licensing policy. Those of us who have been familiar over the years with the ambience of an urban area, such as parts of the City of Westminster, know the problems that a proliferation of licensed premises can make for a local environment. Westminster Council's "Clean Up Soho" campaign is one example of a local authority using the various powers at its disposal to improve the environment of an area without detriment to its thriving social life. Will the Bill give local authorities any leeway in that respect? If not, is it a matter that the Government might be prepared to consider further?
	The same arguments might apply to a rural area. One can imagine circumstances in which a quiet riverside scene might be considered environmentally inappropriate for some kinds of entertainment or licensed activity. Would a local authority be able to take into account the potential impact on a delicate natural environmental or an historic building, for example, when determining its policies? Will it be illegal for an authority to try to protect such vulnerable areas in that way? It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister.
	Equally—here I speak also to Amendment No. 80—can the Minister explain the rationale of the words in Clause 13(2)(d) on the protection of the environment? Amendment No. 80 would remove from paragraph (d) the provisions applying to the work of local authority officers supervising licensed premises; namely, as the paragraph states,
	"minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment".
	It would apply those words to the licensing objectives overall. How can the local authority officers act within those powers if those objectives are not included as part of the overall objectives of the licensing policy envisaged by the Bill?
	There appears to be an inconsistency at least in including the words in paragraph (d) and resisting them in this regard. It sends mixed signals to those who will be responsible for operating under the framework of the Act. The protection of the environment is one of the key roles of any local authority and it commands the widest public support. Can the Minister explain why that overarching imperative should not come into play in the operation of policy under the Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: This issue is of much concern to many local authorities, especially those that have lobbied Members of the Committee. However, I do not support the amendment because there is a slight difficulty in saying to what extent the polluter pays principle would be at work in this regard. The licensee and the licensed premises are often not responsible for the damage to the environment and the local area; that is caused by the patrons of the premises. Litter is inherently connected with late-night fast-food outlets. Will further provisions apply to them and the littering for which they are responsible?

Lord Avebury: My noble friend rightly refers to fast-food restaurants. That was a source of enormous nuisance in the London Borough of Westminster, which the noble Baroness mentioned. She will remember that when Councillor Simon Milton made his presentation he emphasised the enormous quantities of rubbish that are littered on streets by people coming out of fast-food restaurants.
	Fortunately, that has been ameliorated by police action in closing down some of the establishments that operated until well after the closing time of pubs and clubs. Formerly, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's and so on remained open until four o'clock and people came out of drinking establishments, walked over to the fast-food outlet, got a hamburger and immediately threw the litter on the streets. As a result, the council had—and still has—to employ a number of workers who go round in the middle of the night sweeping up the streets. They have to cope with even worse pollution, from people who vomit on the streets, and even worse—I shall not mention some of the things that those workers have to clear up because it is so disgusting. That is not the sort of environment that anyone would like to live near. Fortunately, in that area there are not many residential establishments.
	The assistant commissioner of the metropolitan police told us at the same meeting that that kind of environment is spreading into the suburbs. The late night culture has spread to places such as Romford, Watford, Ealing, Croydon and so on, where clubs are accompanied by fast-food establishments. When tourists arrive the following morning, council officials are still trying to clear up the mess.
	The principle of the polluter pays does not apply because local authorities may well be faced with large additional costs of rectifying the burden on their environment by having to employ many additional workers late at night. Yet the licence fee, which we will turn to later no doubt, is sufficient only to cover the actual costs imposed on the council in operating that system.
	So I think it would be good if we could—not perhaps in the particular way that the noble Baroness has described, but in some other manner—ensure that the council has the ability, where there are severe threats to the environment, to do something about it in its licensing policy. What I am afraid of, to be quite frank about the matter, is that it will not have that ability under the guidance to be issued.
	As the noble Baroness is aware, I am really very upset about the way that the Bill is being handled. We will not know until the guidance is issued what powers the local authorities have to deal with these threats. We will have finished with it long before they come to award the licences and before they have to consider the policies we are talking about today. So, I am sorry, but I think that whatever we say today, the powers of the local authorities are going to be so limited—and this is what they have expressed to us in their complaints—that we shall not be able to protect the environment, not just at the centre of London but in many of our provincial towns, which are now under grave threat.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench and also to allude to the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In terms of the costs which Westminster expects, in addition to additional administration, inspection and enforcement costs of between £1.6 million and £1.2 million, it estimates that the additional cost of street cleansing to cope with 24-hour opening will be in the region of £1.2 million. Extra noise-abatement costs are estimated to be £500,000.
	I put down these markers at this stage because the Government Front Bench will recall that there have been occasions in the past when Westminster has had money taken away from it in the context of people who come into Westminster by day. A large number of the people who come into Soho and the West End stress area during the course of the night are not Westminster residents.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I have listened carefully to the debate on the amendments which seek to alter the licensing objectives which lie at the heart of the Bill. The objectives are designed to ensure that everyone involved in the licensing regime is focused on the common goals that are essential to the well-being of our communities in relation to licensable activities. They are also to ensure that all regulations restricting the freedom of the industry are genuinely necessary and do not duplicate other regulatory regimes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made reference to issues in Clause 13 occurring late in the Bill. That officer is concerned with noise issues. The noble Baroness will recognise that the officers that are identified are concerned with a number of general issues which are not directly related to the licensable activities.
	The four licensing objectives were developed after extensive and detailed consultations with all stakeholders and a lengthy review of the existing law conducted between 1998 and 1999. The result of that consultation is a clear focus on the prevention of disorder and disturbance, the assurance of public safety in places where people gather together for leisure purposes, and the protection of children from physical, moral and psychological harm. The effect of these amendments would be to extend those groups of objectives.
	I turn to the noxious issue of what happens to the wrappings from fast-food outlets and so on. We all recognise entirely the validity of what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Avebury, about the extent of that nuisance. I also respect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that there is a cost involved in clearing up this vast amount of litter.
	It is difficult to suggest that the fast-food licensee is responsible for the litter cast away after the food has been consumed. First, the litter is frequently some distance away from the premises; secondly, the person committing the offence is the person who cast the litter. It is against them that action should and is taken in the best circumstances.
	No doubt we need to tighten up our regimes in that regard. We know the obligations laid upon the police. But we are all concerned to improve the control of litter in our society. From time to time campaigns are run. I can remember a decade ago, in St James's Park, even the Prime Minister at that time led a campaign against litter. But it is unfair, within the framework of this Bill, to make the owner of the fast-food outlet responsible for the litter cast by people who have consumed his food. They are fully responsible for their own actions.
	We should restrict the freedom of persons engaged in legitimate business only to the extent it is absolutely necessary in the wider community interest. Therefore we must be careful only to frame objectives that licensing can properly aim to achieve. These amendments would create new licensing objectives of protection of the environment and minimising or preventing the pollution of the environment.
	Of course protection of the environment is an important issue. But it does not come within the scope of this Bill. The terms proposed would open the way for inappropriate and disproportionate conditions. They would overlap with other regimes in place which already impact on business. Environmental protection controls provide extensively for punitive action against businesses which transgress those rules. The intention behind the amendments is already provided for in a balanced way by the Bill as drafted. A range of expert bodies, including those authorities responsible for health and safety and environmental health, including the police and the fire authority, will have a say in all applications and the call for a review of existing licences.
	I share the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee in this debate. We all recognise that what has been rightly identified is an issue to which we need to address our resources with care. However, the Bill is not the vehicle for environmental protection of that kind. I recognise that the noble Baroness feels that the amendment would enable us to clarify the Government's position. I hope I have succeeded sufficiently to enable her to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I do not seek in any way to prevent the Minister from sitting down. However, he explained that the fast-food outlet does not have a responsibility for litter and that that responsibility falls on the person who distributes the litter. Let me say, so that it is on the record, that in the days when I lived adjacent to Westminster Cathedral, McDonald's were impeccable in the way they cleared up the litter over the whole of the Westminster Cathedral piazza.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I wish to add to what my noble friend Lord Brooke said in relation to the activities of McDonald's. As many of us are aware, they are not alone. A number of organisations in the industry go out of their way to try to minimise the impact within the locality of their various premises.
	That said, we felt it worthwhile raising this issue for clarification. I shall read in Hansard what the Minister said in relation to the licensing objectives. I am still a little uncertain but I do not want to detain the Committee too long on the matter tonight. We were not seeking to alter the objectives; we sought to add to them. We felt that it was a matter of considerable concern. As I said in my opening statement about the amendments, this area commands the widest public support. We were particularly interested that the risk of pollution of the environment was not one of the objectives, although it is referred to, as the Minister and I said, in Clause 13(4)(d), which refers to,
	"the local authority by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health".
	We feel that some of the references are somewhat thrown into the Bill. On the one hand, they are not objectives and, on the other hand, in a sense, they are. That is why I want to read carefully what the Minister said. It is an important issue, but I do not wish to detain the Committee further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) the protection of public health"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving Amendment No. 76, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 79.
	The amendments explore the limits of what the Government think that licensing objectives should be. We have a later amendment, which, we hope, we will be able to debate separately, when we have explored more of the shape of the Bill as a whole in Committee. It suggests that we should have an annual report on alcohol and health that would enable us to monitor and control the effect of the changes in the law. For now, I want just to explore the principle.
	The Government are quick on the draw when it comes to telling us what is good and bad for us. We cannot open a newspaper without getting a lecture on something or other. Whether it is driving, smoking, children's eating habits or fireworks, somewhere there will be a Minister lecturing us about it, a government leaflet preaching about it, a government regulation forbidding it or a government supporter itching to pass a law about it. It sometimes seems that, in this country, we cannot move for government health advice. The advice is not always clear: need I mention sex? It is not always consistent: need I mention cannabis? But it is there.
	Then, we turn to the policy on licensing. That policy will set the framework for a generation for where and when people can drink. Where is health in the equation? I ask the Minister to answer some simple, straight questions. What are the public health advantages of 24-hour drinking? Do the Government have a view? If so, where does it inform policy? If not, where were the Health Ministers while the policy was being framed?
	The Bill concedes that alcohol can be harmful. It is implicit—though not stated—in the concerns set out in the clause about disorder, public safety and public nuisance. It is explicit elsewhere. In Clause 13(4)(d), it is recognised that one of the roles of the officer of a local authority responsible for licensed premises is the prevention of "harm to human health". If it is a legitimate role for a local authority officer to prevent harm to human health in watching over licensed premises, why is that dimension not recognised—and, by implication, not permitted to be recognised—in the licensing objectives? It would be helpful for our future debates if the Minister could explain that to the Committee and, in so doing, give some assessment of the harm to human health that the Bill envisages that local authority officers—but not licensing policy—will prevent. It is all the more puzzling, given the wording of subsection (2)(d), which refers to,
	"the protection of children from harm".
	We debated that with regard to Amendment No. 74, but does the harm that children may suffer include harm to health?
	What is the Government's attitude to the consumption of alcohol in quantities, something that might be facilitated by 24-hour drinking? In what quantities and in what conditions could it be harmful? If it could be harmful, why do the objectives of licensing policy not include, even at the fringes of the policy, the prevention of harm? I hope that we will not see another government illogicality, combining the opening-up of unrestricted drinking hours with controls or bans on the advertising of drink. Do the Government believe that the wider availability of alcohol around the clock affects in any way the case for controlling advertising? I am not advocating such controls; I am simply inquiring into the Government's position. Imagine a situation where a street or area becomes, as some people fear may happen under the Bill, a place where all-night drinkers congregate around the clock. Some streets in London are in that category as a result of the Government's cannabis policy areas for drug use.
	Is there no dimension here of risk or danger of harm to health? I am interested in the Government's response. Are they prepared to think further about those issues? I invite them to consider bringing into the Bill, in relation to licensing objectives, the same consideration for the prevention of harm to human health as appears elsewhere. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I believe that the noble Baroness started with an unfortunate metaphor. She referred to this Government being quick on the draw. It seems an unfortunate concept to suggest that seeking to improve aspects of public well-being should be done at the point of a gun. I say that against the background of the previous two Opposition amendments that would have increased regulation and control, which we sought to resist. Therefore, if anyone has been pointing a gun in the past half hour, I would maintain that it is the mover of previous amendments. However, let that be.
	I emphasise the obvious fact. The amendments seek to add to the four licensing objectives which I explained in response to earlier debate, the promotion of public health and the prevention of harm to human health. Public health is an important issue. I understand the reasoning behind the amendments. However, they are no more justified within the framework of this Bill than protection of the environment. The wider area of the protection of public health is not within the scope of the Bill.
	Having said that, certain of the Bill's measures should have a positive effect on public health. Fixed closing times or permitted hours have been associated with binge drinking as people try to consume large quantities of alcohol against the clock in an attempt to beat last orders.
	If we want a reference where health has improved, we have only to look at the New Zealand and Australian experience—which I admit is not quite the Nordic example we were discussing earlier. However, the features of Australian and New Zealand culture are, for obvious reasons, more closely related to our own. The famous "six o'clock swill" occurred because pubs and bars closed at such a ridiculously early hour that people who had been hard at work all day had less than one hour in which to consume as much alcohol as possible before their time was up. The result was appalling levels of binge drinking and drunkenness generated by artificially early fixed closing times. The issues declined in salience once the licensing regime was relaxed.
	The Bill will do away with artificially early fixed closing times. However, that is just one piece of the jigsaw of evidence. Following the last major liberalisation of licensing law in this country—all-day opening in 1988–89—alcohol consumption fell for several years running.
	The Government recognise the motive behind the amendment. We share with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the fact that alcohol can do harm to health. That is why we have set up the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. The project has close links with my department, but the lead department on this strategy—the noble Baroness made reference to the question of where does the Department of Health fit—is the Department of Health.
	I reiterate that the licensing objectives are designed to ensure that everyone involved in licensing concentrates on clearly focused and understandable common goals essential to the well-being of our communities and worked out in negotiations with all parties to the legislation. However, they must be realistic and must lead to terms, conditions and restrictions on licences which can be sensibly achieved by any licensee. That is why we no more believe that this amendment fits within the framework of the Bill than we did its immediate predecessor, with which it has a close parallel.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will once again feel that I have explained the Government's position sufficiently for her to be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Chan: Where within the licensing authority will there be an emphasis on public health? Apart from the issue of prolonged hours for drinking alcohol, other issues arise; for instance, the temptation to forget about cleaning the premises. Floors and toilets have to be cleaned and, more importantly, beer lines must be sterilised. There will be the danger of the licensee deciding to delay that cleaning because of his concern to please his clients who are there for longer periods.
	There will also be prolonged exposure to a smoke-filled environment and I wonder whether that has been considered. Furthermore, members of staff must also work additional hours. Surely those issues must be highlighted within the Bill.

Lord Avebury: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that those issues should be highlighted within the Bill. We are in danger of losing sight of the overwhelming tide of alcohol that is sweeping through the country. According to the latest figures, alcohol-related illness is costing the National Health Service £2.9 billion per annum.
	The Minister is out of date when he ascribes the harm to binge drinking immediately before the standard closing time of eleven o'clock. I do not know where he has been for the past few years, but patterns of drinking have changed. Pubs may close at eleven o'clock, but other establishments continue until two, three or four in the morning.
	I do not know whether the Minister saw the article in the Guardian last week announcing:
	"New wave of sophisticated alcopops fuels teenage binge drinking",
	or whether he read the article immediately below that stating:
	"Out on the town in Romford where 16 year-olds have 10 bottles a night".
	That describes drinking patterns. One young girl aged 16 said that she goes out to the pubs and that after they close she goes into clubs. There she consumes, as the headline says, 10 bottles or even more. Some people drink 15 bottles between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. That is not the kind of binge drinking with which we were familiar a few years ago when people swallowed large quantities of alcohol immediately before closing time.
	That pattern has disappeared from the drinking life of this country. The increasing consumption of alcohol is already being fuelled by establishments which open late at night. The noble Lord and his Government are proposing to extend that culture all over the country and to allow any establishment to open for as many hours as it thinks it needs to sell more alcohol. That is the only point of the exercise; establishments would not stay open all night if they were not going to increase their sales. As sales mount, more harm will be done to the nation's health. There is no argument whatever that the costs to this country in terms of accidents and ill health due to alcohol will increase according to the amount of alcohol that is drunk. In ignoring health issues we are setting off a time bomb. Alcohol-related harm is already ripping into our national life, causing immense harm particularly to young people.
	I appeal to the noble Lord to read the document which was recently published by the Department of Health—a survey carried out by the National Centre for Social Research and the National Foundation for Educational Research, Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in 2001. I think that it would benefit Ministers who are dealing with this Bill to look at that report. They always speak about joined-up government, but every time we ask about the harm that is caused by alcohol the Minister says that it has nothing to do with licensing. I do not accept that answer and I appeal to the Government to think again.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It is not for me to come to the aid of the Government Front Bench, but there are two points which are worth making. The first is that the consumption of alcopops has declined quite radically since the Government introduced excise changes. Consumption has dropped by 18 per cent in the past 12 months. I am not saying that there is not a problem but that particular aspect has been tackled.
	The second point is that market forces drive good licensees of pubs to have a neat, clean, well-organised place. They want the car park to look nice; they want the environment to look nice. If it does not look nice, the customers will not come again. I accept the points that are being made, but I think that we must also see that there is an economic rationale within this for publicans to ensure that their clientele are well behaved and that the pub is clean and well organised, because that will bring people back again. They are in a trade where they want people to return and to use the public house day after day, week after week.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I think that is true but, if you travel around the country as I do, visiting various towns on political errands of one kind or another, you will find that in almost every town there are two or three large pubs which are solid drinking places for young people, from about six o'clock on into the night. Those are the pubs which have to encourage people to stay on in order to drink more.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, is of course right in saying that they do their best to see that their car parks are tidy, that the place is not full of vomit and that it is reasonably well controlled. But these are places to which people become accustomed to going. They know that this is a place you go to on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night in any provincial town, and you drink as much as you possibly can.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We have had a clear illustration of how easy it is to identify a well-known issue with regard to public health, to bring in a whole range of arguments which are somewhat extraneous to this measure, and then to indicate that somehow this measure ought to be expanded to cover all of these aspects.
	Let us take the most obvious things. I know the reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and I very much respect his contribution to issues of public health. But this is not the Bill in which we constrain the hours of work of the people who work in licensed premises. We have legislation which deals with hours of work. Employment legislation is a key feature of the Government's record, of which they are rightly proud. This measure, however, does not include the issue of working hours. Nor is there any question of a licence being granted or renewed to a licensee who is not capable of keeping his equipment clean enough to avoid straightforward damage to public health—which would soon become apparent, it would seem to me, if he were guilty of fouling the pipes to the extent suggested. Of course it is an important consideration, but only within the obvious general obligation of a licensee to provide a healthy beverage—that is, a non-poisonous beverage—to the consumer.
	I regard the issue of alcopops as somewhat extraneous. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly identified the fact that there had been a significant rise in under-age drinking which needed to be addressed, and that alcopops formed a part of that cult. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, came to my rescue like a knight in shining armour—for which I am duly grateful—and I can merely testify to the accuracy of what the noble Lord said: that is, that these issues have been addressed. The Portman Group has established agreed packaging for alcopops and the Government have taken steps to encourage the development of a code of practice to help to control the position.
	Nothing needs to be added to the Bill in terms of constraints on under-age drinking. We had that debate earlier in regard to identity cards. Of course, identity cards would not necessarily solve the problem of alcopops because other people could purchase them for under-age drinkers in all kinds of outlets. The problem must be tackled on the basis of the way in which these alcoholic beverages are presented to the public. Strenuous work has been carried out to ensure that some of the worst features of that problem have been brought under control to a degree.
	I recognise that the amendment introduces the issue of public health. This is important in regard to alcohol because we know that excessive consumption of alcohol is dangerous to humankind. We also know that alcohol is one of the joys of the community. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may ask where I do my drinking; I would ask where he has been if he does not appreciate the fact that alcohol, drunk in restrained amounts in ideal circumstances, is one of the great joys of our society and civilization. What are we more proud of in Britain than the concept of the British pub?
	Within that framework, part of the representations on this amendment appear to be fundamental Second Reading points on what is wrong with anything that extends licensing hours. We have argued the case with great strength, both on Second Reading and when it has cropped up in these amendments, and on that basis I hope that we can move on and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is right that these issues should be probed. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, came forward with additional thoughts in relation to whether or not the beer lines will be sterilised if pubs are on the go 24 hours a day. These are important issues where publicans are under pressure—notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Hodgson said—and are bound to impact on the day-to-day workings of licensed premises. Indeed, they will become more apparent given the pressures involved in the prolonged hours of work that I suspect will impact on those with premises licences and individual personal licences as a result of the liberalising laws in the Bill.
	It is important to reiterate that one of the reasons for probing this issue is that we on this side of the Committee do not seek to regulate, to clamp down, to minimise and control—far from it—but, as I said in opening the debate, we are somewhat intrigued by the fact that the Government lecture us on many fronts in relation to what is good for us and for our health. Even in a recent report on the future of sport, which was leaked from 10 Downing Street, it seems that sport is no longer about having fun, team playing, enjoying yourself; it is about health. We do not disagree with that. However, we are saying that the entire tenet, the drive, of the Government at the moment seems to be about how we look after ourselves and our health. That is not a bad idea, but it seems that we should not be debating the matter now.
	I make no apology for raising this important issue. It is also referred to in Clause 13 of the Bill. We believe that if matters of public health and the protection of the environment were on the face of the Bill, the licensing objectives would benefit the local authorities that will have to work with the Bill, when enacted.
	On that basis, we have had a good debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 77 to 80 not moved.]

Lord Geddes: Before calling Amendment No. 81, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 82 to 89 inclusive due to pre-emption.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Baroness Buscombe: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84.
	These amendments relate to the duty imposed by Clause 4(3) on a licensing authority to "have regard to" its own licensing statement and the Secretary of State's guidance when carrying out its functions. Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 84 are probing amendments that would delete the current wording of the Bill. Amendment No. 82 would replace the words "have regard to" with "take into account".
	I have tabled these amendments to probe the exact nature of the duties that will be imposed on local authorities under Clause 4. The Committee will have noticed that, although the term "have regard to" is used in subsection (3) in relation to following the licensing statement and the Secretary of State's guidance, subsection (1) uses the term "with a view to promoting". It would have been open to the Government to say in subsection (1), "A licensing authority must have regard to the licensing objectives when carrying out its functions under this Act", rather than using the term "with a view to promoting" in the Bill.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to the Committee why the Government have chosen to use what in my submission is the slightly weaker wording, imposing a less onerous duty, of "with a view to promoting" in subsection (1), which deals with the statutory licensing objectives, but have chosen the wording "have regard to" in the context of subsection (3), which deals with a duty to follow the licensing statement and the Secretary of State's guidance.
	I therefore take it from the wording of the Bill that if in the judgment of a licensing authority either the licensing statement or the national guidance conflict with the licensing objectives in subsection (2), it will have to apply the statement and the guidance over the objectives, given the difference between the terms "with a view to promoting" and "having regard to". Perhaps the Minister will comment on that when she comes to the Dispatch Box, and also on what a licensing authority will have to do if it considers that its own licensing statement and the Secretary of State's national guidance conflict. Which will be followed?
	The Committee will recall that during the final stages of the passage of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Bill in the previous Session your Lordships' House agreed, after a Division, to an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns. That amendment would have placed a duty on the Secretary of State—that is, the Home Secretary—to "have regard to" the needs of asylum seekers when choosing sites for new accommodation centres.
	Members of the Committee—not least my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who took a great interest in the provisions of that Bill—will also recall that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on consideration of Commons amendments and reasons, said that the wording of that amendment,
	"would open up an increased probability of frequent judicial review".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col.782.]
	He said that it would open us up to delay and judicial review. I therefore invite the Minister to comment on the use of the words "have regard to" in Clause 4(3).
	I ought to say that there are many instances in legislation of duties being imposed on public authorities to "have regard to" certain matters when making decisions. But I thought that in the light of the recent comments by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, from the Government Front Bench I should give the noble Baroness an opportunity to tell the Committee something of the Government's thinking on the drafting of Clause 4 and the potential for judicial review of licensing authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: This is an important set of amendments, relating as it does to Clause 177 and bringing the clause into play in terms of the guidance—which could of greater or lesser importance depending on what is included. The framework guidance which has been made available to us runs to 11 pages and 55 paragraphs. Within that there is either an opportunity for extreme centralisation or alternatively the emergence of local democracy and decentralisation depending on what emphasis is placed on the document.
	The document contains a great deal that is unclear. It uses words such as "proportionality"—the pages are not numbered—in connection with premises licences. I am not quite sure what "proportionality" is in relation to a premises licence. Other aspects of the premises licence raise questions. For example, there is a reference to large venues of 1,500 people. It is not clear to me whether 1,500 is a number that will be set in stone for ever or whether it is capable of being altered.
	Many personal licence holders operating under a premises licence granted under the terms of the Bill—if capacity is applied to their public houses, and if different levels of capacity are applied to different bars—could have extreme difficulty in managing the flow of people between the different parts of the licensed premises.
	My noble friend has raised an important point as to exactly where and how the guidance can be fitted in. It is already lengthy and capable of being extremely prohibitive to local conditions, or alternatively very empowering in terms of local democracy. We need to spend some time considering how this will operate and whether it is not actually the guts of the Bill by proxy in Clause 177.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I strongly support what my noble friend has just said and the remarks of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I find a particular sympathy with Amendment No. 83. It would be helpful if in replying to this brief debate the Minister could tell us why precisely this guidance from the Secretary of State is thought to be necessary. Surely the whole essence of having licensing authorities is that they know the local conditions best. It is perfectly understandable if in one area late-night activity is not thought to be a problem whereas in another it can be very objectionable indeed. If licensing authorities are to have a purpose, surely that kind of decision must be left to them.
	What worries me about this is that once again it seems to be a case of "the Minister in Whitehall knows best" and, if necessary, he is going to promulgate and licensing authorities throughout the country are going to have to listen.
	Perhaps I may quote a somewhat similar example from my experience as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, an interest that I have declared frequently in this Chamber. As many will know, the Government are anxious for the South Downs to be turned into a national park. One of the reasons why there is considerable hesitancy about this is the feeling that in the end the Minister will decide exactly how a national park is to be run, he will appoint most of the members and so forth, rather than trust in the local authorities, the local people who know the conditions, to make the judgments.
	Particularly in the case of licensing and the freeing up of the licensing laws—of which I approve—it is worrying if the licensing authorities feel, with reason, that there may be an edict from the centre that does not take account of local conditions. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that Amendment No. 83 was a probing one. It is jolly specific. I wish to know why it is thought necessary that the Secretary of State can administer the guidance at all. Could that not be seen as a threat to the ability of local licensing authorities to make their own difficult decisions about what is appropriate in their own areas?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: This grouping is an a la carte menu of amendments directed, broadly speaking, to the same point and purpose. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry opted for Amendment No. 83. I opt for Amendment No. 84, which was tabled jointly by the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Having heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I thought that he, too, might be supporting Amendment No. 84. I may have misunderstood his speech.
	Amendment No. 84 proposes the deletion of Clause 4(3)(b). If, as the Bill implies at present, a licensing authority must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in the exercise of all its licensing functions, local accountability will be eroded to an unacceptable extent. In addition, the legislation would leave unclear the respective roles of the licensing authority's statement of licensing policy, on the one hand, and the Secretary of State's guidance, on the other.
	Assuming that Clause 177 stands part of the Bill, licensing authorities will be required to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance when formulating policy. But, having done so, it seems to me that the statement of licensing policy should guide the determination of licensing applications. If a local authority did not have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, it could be subject to judicial review in the manner to which my noble friend Lady Buscombe referred. That course of action, if it were followed, would contribute to the Bill's aim of ensuring local democratic decision-making in determining licence applications.
	The test of the proposition is that, alternatively, if the local authority's licensing policy is at variance with the Secretary of State's guidance or vice versa, the magistrates at appeal level will have to determine both the policy and the facts of the individual case. That cannot be right if the principle of democratic accountability is, in any genuine sense, to be maintained as, I assume, the Government still intend—if I may give them the benefit of the doubt.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My noble friend is absolutely right. I was incorrect in saying that I supported Amendment No. 83. I was speaking to Amendment No. 84.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Rarely do I have the effect of changing the speech of any of my colleagues on these Benches. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for telling me that I did on this occasion.

Lord Redesdale: I shall speak briefly. I thought that Amendment No. 84, to which my name is attached, would be grouped with the next set of amendments. I will therefore speak to it with the next group.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I hope very much that the Government will consider these amendments carefully, and that they provide the type of safeguards discussed in the context of amendments to previous legislation. I hope that they will be pursued properly.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall try to set out the hierarchy of responsibilities in Clauses 4, 5 and 177, on which there is confusion—no doubt, that is the Government's fault, as is everything else. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, queried the phrase in Clause 4, "with a view to promoting". Clause 4 states:
	"A licensing authority must carry out its functions . . . with a view to promoting the licensing objectives".
	That means that it has no choice. It is not a weak provision; it is a strong requirement. We have now passed the four licensing objectives. The committee has approved them as the bedrock on which the activities of licensing authorities will be based.
	Clause 5 relates to the statement of licensing policy, which is enormously important. However, it is produced by the individual licensing authority. It sets out over a three-year period—the detail of which we shall come to shortly—the way in which the licensing authority interprets the four licensing objectives in the context of its own area. It has to do so with a degree of transparency that is set out in detail in the clause. It also has to consult; it has to publish; it has to argue; and it has to be prepared to listen to representations. Generally speaking this is, if you like, the local responsibility element of the way of which licensing policy is delivered.
	Finally, there is Clause 177, which deals with guidance. Everyone has read the Framework for Guidance. I should remind the Committee that guidance is not legislation; it is a document produced by the Secretary of State that is designed to secure that no unnecessary conflicts exist between the licensing policies set out by different licensing authorities. It also sets out the kind of issues that licensing authorities must consider when they are producing such a policy. The phrase for that is quite deliberately "have regard to"; in other words, when we are talking about guidance, which is neither legislation nor an instruction, the words "have regard to" are appropriate because the authority retains an ultimate discretion to depart from the guidance.
	If an authority departs from the guidance, it has a public duty to show that it has had regard to the guidance—that is to say, that it has taken it seriously and used it in the process of formulating its objectives. Those are the three levels, as it were, through which we arrive at the basis upon which licensing authorities take individual decisions.
	We should now look at the amendments before the Committee. They work in two opposite directions, which is perhaps a feature of the grouping rather than anything else. Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 would remove the obligation for a licensing authority to "have regard to" its own licensing statement, which has been determined and published under Clause 5. Amendment No. 84 would remove the obligation on a licensing authority to have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State; in other words, if you take the two provisions together as you would with Amendment No. 81, or if you take them separately as you would with Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, the licensing authority is left in limbo. A licensing authority would not have to pay any attention to its own statement, and it would not have to pay any attention to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
	However, Amendment No. 82 works in completely the opposite direction. It says that a licensing authority should "take into account" both provisions, rather than "have regard to" them. The Bill provides flexibility. However, the requirement to "take into account" would place a stronger obligation on licensing authorities to take on board all the relevant sections of the guidance and of licensing policies, and would leave them open to challenge if they failed to do so. The requirement to "have regard to" more fully reflects the fact that there will be certain circumstances in which licensing authorities will have reason to depart from the guidance.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: As the Minister was making his response to this grouping, I turned to Clause 177 of the Bill to look at the nature of the Secretary of State's guidance, which will be,
	"guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under this Act".
	Is the Minister saying that they would not be subject to judicial review if they went ahead and paid no attention to Clause 177 even though the words "have regard to" had been removed from the Bill by Amendment No. 84? If he is not saying that, is he not putting the local authority in the position that it has to keep altering its licensing policy in the light of any future guidance?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On its own, Amendment No. 84 removes the obligation on the licensing authority to "have regard to" any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In other words, by agreeing to the amendment, one is doing as good as voting against Clause 177 stand part. There is no point in having guidance if no one has an obligation to have regard to it. Is that the question I was asked?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: That is the question I was asking. However, on the Minister's interpretation, which I acknowledge from the text, would he then oblige the local authority to keep changing its licensing policy in the light of any new guidance? I am saying that the local authority could have regard to Clause 177 when it set out its licensing policy in the first instance.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The local authority does not have to change it every single time; it just has to show that it has had regard to it. The guidance may change and the licensing authority may say, "Yes, we thought about that, but it does not apply to us and we are not going to make any change to our statement under Clause 5".

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The issue of large capacity venues has caused some concern. Could a licensing authority say, "We have had regard to the guidance, but we don't want 1,500 as the limit in our area; we want 500". Could it do that, or must it be 1,500 or above? It is the smaller capacity issues that will be very difficult to enforce.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As long as they have thought about it, and as long as they have read the guidance and paid attention to it, yes, of course, they could change the 1,500—they could change it to 500, or they could change it to 5,000 if they wanted to. My noble friend Lady Blackstone will speak more about the guidance in speaking to the next group, so I shall not go into it in detail. However, the framework which Members of the Committee have seen is not the guidance itself; the framework was provided to inform debate on Clause 177. The guidance will take account of the debates in this House as well as all the other representations made on it. The obligation on the local authority is to "have regard to" the guidance. If it reads the guidance very carefully, thinks about it and says, "1,500 is not the appropriate number for us", it is within its powers to do so.
	It is a hierarchy of obligations. The licensing objectives, in Clause 4, are common for all local authorities and are obligatory on all local authorities. The statement of licensing policy, in Clause 5, is designed to take account of local circumstances and is produced by licensing authorities themselves. The guidance in Clause 177 is designed to provide help for local authorities in producing consistency between licensing authorities and to give guidance on what should be in licensing policies. Those are the three elements. All of these amendments would cause damage to the relationship between those elements.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The noble Lord is understandably trying to play down the importance of guidance. Nevertheless, what real reason does he have to do that? Earlier, I quoted the example of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty; PPGs—planning policy guidance—are issued to local authorities about their planning decisions in that regard. If they do not follow that guidance, it is very likely that an inspector and an inquiry would follow, and that very serious questions would be asked about why the PPG issued by the Environment Secretary had not been followed.
	Does not that go to the heart of the problem? What is guidance? It is just a tilt in the right direction and if the licensing authority does not want to follow it, so be it. But certainly as regards planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, that is not the case. Local planning committees are certainly expected to follow that planning guidance.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not trying to play down the matter. I am simply saying that, having had regard to the guidance—in other words, having considered it properly—the licensing authority can reach a different conclusion which is appropriate to its circumstances. That recognises the differences between, for example, a town centre and a rural area.
	I do not deny or confirm anything that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, says about planning guidance. I do not think that we should draw any conclusions from guidance in other legislation. I refer to what will happen in the circumstances we are discussing. There is a balance here of common objectives agreed by everyone and understood by licence applicants, local residents, the police and local authorities together with a degree of local autonomy providing for special circumstances whether in Sutton town centre or Muddlecombe-under-Slosh. That is provided for in Clause 5. There is also the guiding hand of the Secretary of State in the sense that I have described it. That seems to me a rational way of dealing with devolution and special circumstances but with a necessary core of consistency.

Lord Avebury: I hope that the Minister can explain a matter to me. He referred to paragraph 41 of the framework guidance which refers to the situation in premises which have a capacity exceeding 1,500. In designing their policies how can local authorities ever specify what is to be done in these larger premises if no one can ever acquire the experience that is necessary to manage them? If they stick rigidly to the recommendation in paragraph 41, the licence would have to lay down that the individual responsible for day-to-day management must have had a certain level of experience of controlling similar venues. So how does anyone acquire the experience that enables him to manage such large premises when he cannot be appointed to them even provisionally within the terms of the advice that the Secretary of State will lay down?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not embark on a detailed defence of the framework guidance. As I said, the matter of how guidance and draft guidance will be made available will be explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she discusses the next group of amendments. Of course, questions remain with regard to paragraph 41 of the guidance. There are parts that legislation cannot reach. However, guidance can be changed to suit changing circumstances. If we sought to legislate in either primary or secondary legislation to cover all the eventualities that might arise in negotiations between the licensing authority and applicants, we would be here until midnight for many months. We shall be here until close to that time as it is. We are in danger of going much too far.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. We are in danger of being here rather a long time as we are desperately seeking clarity. On the one hand, I am extremely grateful to the Minister because my question has been answered. My question was: what will a licensing authority do when it has to consider its own licensing statement and national guidance issued by the Secretary of State and when there is conflict? The Minister has made it clear that the local authority will retain the ultimate authority to depart from the guidance. In turn, I question why that is not clearly stated in the Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, it is unclear who takes precedence.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly what "have regard to" means; that is what it means in legislation, and has done for many years. I can have a learned letter written to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to give her precedents. Her interpretation is exactly right, and that is why we use the words "have regard to" rather than "take account of".

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister, but he may remember that I referred to something that his noble friend Lord Filkin said. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggested in relation to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill that the wording "having regard to" would,
	"open up an increased probability of frequent judicial review".—[Official Report, 6/11/02; col. 782.]
	He also said that it would cause delay. I believe that we are right to table these probing amendments. When developing our thoughts and arguments in relation to the amendments, we were of the view that "have regard to" carries more instruction than "take into account". The Minister sees it the other way, and I am grateful for his clarity.
	The provision will, however, create a sense of inconsistency at local level. As I know from my own experience as a district councillor on a planning committee, like it or not the committee was very much subject to the instructions of the planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry made a similar point. Officials and elected members of local government will be given much more of a free hand with this Bill, but they will have to stick to what is customary at local level in following national guidance.
	Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I ask him to think carefully about the possibility of introducing an amendment on Report to make it clear in the Bill that the ultimate authority will remain with the local authority to depart from the guidance. In that way, people will know exactly where they are and will not have to go fishing in Hansard for the answers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 82 to 84 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 3, line 16, leave out "guidance" and insert "regulations"

Baroness Buscombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 91 and the Question whether Clause 177 shall stand part of the Bill.
	I am concerned with the national guidance as detailed in Clause 177. In the Explanatory Notes, the guidance gets a mere two sentences of explanation. We are told that:
	"The Bill provides that licensing authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in formulating their framework policy documents and in discharging their other functions under the Bill".
	The Bill seeks to streamline the current variety of licences under one licensing system. The task is large and the attempt is admirable. I concede the need for some of the detail of the functions of licensing committees to be dealt with in secondary legislation. We have limited time on the Floor of your Lordships' House and in the other place, which prevents us from having a debate on every function, definition and specification. However, a glance at the framework guidance—which was issued after much delay—has left many in this place, and many in local authorities, the police and industry, fearful of the Government's motives. The day-to-day functioning of the licensing committees is apparently to be left to the whim of the Secretary of State, subject to revision at whatever time he or she may think necessary. I doubt whether I am alone—I am sure that I am not—in questioning the democratic nature of a system in which such important matters are not only not in the Bill but not even subject to delegated legislation. That point has been made throughout our debate this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We find ourselves in a position in which we are trying to debate and scrutinise legislation that provides barely half of the picture.
	The framework for guidance was issued, but rather than alleviating my fears, it has confirmed them. Guidance will be provided on almost every aspect of the Bill—to recommend, confirm, underline and emphasise. It sounds more like dictation from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport rather than flexibility and liberalisation.
	Amendment No. 85 is designed to probe that grey area. Subsection (3) stipulates that the licensing authority should,
	"have regard to . . . its licensing statement . . . and . . . any guidance".
	There may be instances in which the two are at odds. We know now from the Minister which will take precedence, and we are grateful for that clarity. However, we on this side of the Chamber feel that the matters that we have been led to believe will be dealt with in the guidance should rather be handed over to delegated legislation, which may be discussed in the form of statutory instruments. We believe that that would result in a sensible compromise between demanding that much more is in the Bill and the other situation with which we are now presented, by which so much of what I called at Second Reading the nuts and bolts of the legislation is left to guidance, which can be changed at any time without referral to interested parties—the Government like to refer to them these days as stakeholders.
	Such regulations would be subject to scrutiny by your Lordships' House and would not be able to be revised without approval of this House and the other place. It is imperative that such an alteration is made. For those reasons, I express my intention to oppose the Question whether Clause 177 stand part of the Bill. I propose our Amendment No. 91 as a viable alternative.
	The Government have promised the publication of the guidance by the spring, which may be as late as May. We have recently been told that it will be published in the new year. Which part of the new year? We fear that it will appear when the Bill has left your Lordships' House and passed to the other place. That simply is not good enough.
	Although the hour is late, I could spend an enormous length of time on this amendment, and I know that other Members of the Committee want to contribute to this debate. However, the guidance notes do not deal with many issues. Our postbags are full of letters from interested parties concerned about the Bill's details. We strongly believe that much more could be in the Bill.
	A classic example is that of off-trade, which seeks clarity about whether all or part of a premises can remain open at the same time in future. One part of the guidance notes says that that is the case; but what if the guidance notes change? A supermarket may find itself able in the first instance to have its alcohol section open 24 hours a day in future, along with the rest of the supermarket, but three years down the road that may change. That leaves an enormous amount of uncertainty. Is that fair on the industry, on local authorities and on all interested parties, which really means all of us?
	This is an important debate and we hope that the Minister will take it seriously. Many issues deserve more attention and should be dealt with in the Bill. If not, they deserve to be dealt with through delegated legislation, which affords all of us the opportunity to scrutinise the workings of the legislation. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: The purpose of putting my name to Amendment No. 84 was to pave the way for Amendment No. 91, which we support wholeheartedly. This seems to be another occasion on which the Government have been given time to clarify the basis under which a Bill will operate as set out in the framework; but that guidance turns up extremely late. Indeed, we are given an unspecified time of the New Year or the spring when the actual document will be in front of us. That does not seem acceptable.
	The framework's introductory paragraph states:
	"The framework is provided to enable and enhance Parliamentary scrutiny and debate in connection with the Bill".
	That may well be the case because it outlines certain aspects that will be in the guidance. But the detail is completely lacking with regard to how those will work in practice. Although the framework is a fairly long document, that lack of detail is almost unacceptable considering that we are discussing the broad skeleton of the Bill and that all the flesh is to be provided by the guidance, which is not with us.
	Given that that is the case, we have resorted to using a sledgehammer on the nut of this amendment. To continue that analogy, it is a nut that we are quite prepared to smash open because without it we will be in breach of our very purpose of scrutinising the Bill. We are putting Bills before Parliament about which we have very little understanding of how they will work in practice.
	The Minister will say that all the aspects that are in the framework document are going to be fleshed out to everyone's satisfaction. However, the difference between the White Paper and the Bill is quite substantial. What is being proposed as being in the guidance document and what is actually in it could be quite dramatically different.
	Therefore, we support the amendment. I very much hope that the Minister can give not just an indication of when the guidance document will be published, but an actual date. If she cannot do so, I think that we shall have to return to this amendment. I should be surprised if we do not push the amendment at a later stage of the Bill because it goes to our fundamental concern that we will be allowing a Bill to pass through Parliament which we have not scrutinised properly.

Lord Cobbold: I speak in respect of Clause 177 on guidance. I have read the Framework for Guidance—I am not sure whether it was the right one—to be issued under this clause. I had hoped for clarification on an issue which has not so far been raised in the debate, but unfortunately I have been disappointed.
	The whole focus of the Bill and of the debate so far has been the question of transferring responsibility for the licensing of pubs and clubs from magistrates to local authorities and on the implications of the 24-hour opening of pubs and clubs.
	My concern is that neither the Bill nor the Framework for Guidance deal adequately with the granting of entertainment and music and dancing licences. These licences are currently governed by Section 1 and Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This section and schedule are to be specifically repealed under Schedule 7—page 150—of the Bill.
	I declare an interest in that I am personally involved in the ownership and management of Knebworth Park in Hertfordshire. We have a music and dancing licence from the local authority for up to 15,000 people. This licence is renewable annually and covers a variety of open-air events and entertainment that take place in the park throughout the year. On occasions, we also play host to very large open-air rock concerts. Our licence capacity for those events is 125,000. In those cases we apply to the local authority for an extension of the licence to cover the specific event or events.
	We work very closely with the licensing authority on such events, usually for many months in advance. I have discussed the Bill with our licensing officer. Neither of us can see how these situations would be covered by the Bill as it stands. I may say in passing that our local licensing authority does not foresee enormous problems in taking on the licensing of pubs and clubs.
	I presume that our annual music and dancing licence will become a premises licence. But as the Bill stands, it is clear that one-off, large, open-air concerts would not be covered by the provisions for "permitted temporary activities" in Part 5 of the Bill, which are restricted to the arbitrary maximum of 500 people.
	I tabled one or two clarifying amendments for the later stages of our debate. At this stage I merely wish to point out the absence of guidance other than a helpful letter I received from the Minister. I suggest to the Government that they need to put the situation right and perhaps to reconsider incorporating the relevant sections of the 1982 Act into the Bill, in particular Schedule 1, paragraphs 3 and 4.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: Amendment No. 91 and Clause 3 are key here. The word "safeguard" comes to mind. There is great concern in the Committee about the nature of this legislation. I hope that these amendments are given careful consideration.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have sympathy for my noble friend in bringing forward these amendments given where we are at this stage of the Bill and at this hour of the night. I do not intend to sound patronising, but the Government redeemed themselves considerably in the Minister's response to the last grouping.
	Given that we are not making rapid progress on the Bill, I ask myself why the Government are so consistently in trouble on it. I have taken the egotistical liberty of going back to the National Lottery Bill, a measure not dissimilar in terms of breaking new ground and being pressed on us in part by experience elsewhere. Once the Albanians—the only other country in Europe who did not have a lottery—decided to have one, we felt that we should really have one ourselves.
	The Government have shown great stamina in pursuing this issue since 1998. But they have been a little infirm of purpose in not ploughing an absolutely straight furrow—I do not use the word "straight" in any sense implying intellectual dishonesty—over those four years. Thus they left the total constituency, everybody involved—the industry and the local authorities—in some doubt as to their ultimate intention.
	On the National Lottery Bill we sought to be utterly transparent. I was not present for Second Reading. I know the Minister had a problem with her voice. Perhaps because of that she was not interrupted. When I moved the Second Reading of the National Lottery Bill in the other place, I spoke for one hour and gave way every other minute. We did so deliberately to show that we had absolutely nothing to hide. I do not blame the Government. I simply say that the difficulties we are experiencing are partly attributable to suspicions about some aspects of the Bill. A considerable element of resolution therefore exists on this side of the House to get at what the Government's real intentions are.
	To revert to the lottery, the consequence of the manner in which we played it was that the guidance to the lottery distributors had regard to exactly the same principle to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago. We did not have any difficulty at all. I know the Government may be troubled about the length of time it is taking us, but there is a desire to get this Bill right. If we do not get it right, we are sleep-walking into trouble.

Baroness Blackstone: Of course, I take the issues raised in this short debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others, seriously. The noble Baroness asked me to do so, and I do. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that I have absolutely nothing to hide. It is in the interests of neither the Government nor this Committee to try to hide things. Far from it.
	Clause 177 of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to issue and revise guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Bill. Clause 4 requires licensing authorities to have regard to any such guidance in carrying out their licensing functions, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey spelt out several times with regard to the previous group of amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 35 and 91 are intended to replace the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue under the Bill with regulations. The regulations could be issued or renewed only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament every three years to renew the regulations. The guidance that the Bill provides for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue will be developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of local authorities and the licensed trades. It is intended to promote best practice, to aid licensing authorities in making licensing decisions and to help business. It will, therefore, help to ensure a degree of consistency, where that is needed, throughout England and Wales. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said clearly, it is intended to be flexible, helpful and, importantly, responsive.
	There are two issues. One is whether the guidance should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. I have certainly noted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that a mechanism should be made available for guidance to be debated by each House. Of course, I take that recommendation seriously and will consider how we ought to proceed.
	We must consider what scrutiny is appropriate, but I doubt that the full panoply of secondary legislation renewable every three years is the most useful way to proceed. For a start, it would make for an extremely inflexible system. In the light of the licensing authorities' experience of the new regime, it may be necessary to revise the guidance. That happens from time to time, when governments provide guidance for local authorities and others. The revisions might be minor, but they might need to be made quite frequently.
	The power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the licensing authorities is designed to provide those authorities with an accessible and readily usable best practice guide. It will inform them of the types of matters that the Secretary of State considers likely to need to be taken into account as they reach their decisions and exercise their licensing functions generally. It is not intended to set out prescriptive rules that must be adhered to in all cases by all authorities, when they take decisions and exercise their general functions. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not now in his place, but I think that that is what he was referring to, when he spoke on the previous group of the undesirability of having such rigidity. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey then explained that the guidance would not be rigid but flexible.
	Regulations would be rigid, and that would be inappropriate, as the system must be responsive to local conditions and needs, which will differ from authority to authority and application to application. It is not an area for prescription of the degree of detail and scope of application. That would be the case if the guidance were replaced by regulations, as the amendment would provide. I must tease the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, as she teased the Government for being too prescriptive. The noble Baroness is now asking, in this group of amendments, that the Government should be more prescriptive. She is asking for regulations, instead of guidance.
	Regulations would be inappropriate, if we are to achieve our intentions for the guidance. Where we have seen the need for detailed rules to be consistently applied by all authorities, we have provided for those to be set out in regulations, by giving the Secretary of State a power. There are regulations attached to the Bill. However, we do not believe that guidance can be uniformly applied for all authorities for all purposes. It is right that assistance should be given, but authorities should not be compelled into abiding by a rigid framework, where recommendations for best practice and expectations cannot be justified, due to local considerations in the promotion of the licensing objectives, in the exercise of their functions.
	I hope that noble Lords will agree that approaching guidance through regulations would not be appropriate. We must think of a way that would give a genuine opportunity for scrutiny but, at the same time, allowed the Government and the licensing authorities sufficient room for manoeuvre to adapt to emerging experience and changing conditions.
	The other issue is certainty about what the guidance will contain. Of course, I understand that there is anxiety about that. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the guidance which the Secretary of State would issue were the Bill to become law. There would be advantages as we consider aspects of the Bill if that guidance were already available in full. I appreciate that.
	For that reason, we have already provided Parliament with a framework document which makes clear what the guidance will contain and its range—although, admittedly, not all the detail. We are prepared to address this concern and to enable scrutiny if the framework has not fully met the point for some noble Lords.
	There are two reasons why the guidance itself is not yet available. First, as the framework makes clear, a lot of it is technical material that requires detailed preparation. Secondly, some of it raises important issues on which it is vital for us to consult stakeholders. I understand the wish to see the guidance in its full form. However, it is equally true that we would have been accused of being rather presumptuous if before today we had completed the technical work and consulted stakeholders on guidance for a Bill that had only just received its Second Reading.
	The work is in hand. Meetings are already taking place with the wide range of interests and government departments concerned. A tight schedule of consideration has been planned for January.
	Today I am unable to undertake to produce guidance of this complexity in a couple of weeks. Indeed, I cannot commit Ministers in other departments which are involved to consider the guidance in a few days and set aside the usual conventions of collective agreement. However, given the strength of views on this point, I am willing to undertake to examine what can be done, while respecting all the points that I have made, and to examine whether an early draft can be exposed for consideration by noble Lords before the Bill completes its stages in this House.
	Clause 177 provides that the Secretary of State may issue and revise guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Bill. Subsection (2) provides that the Secretary of State must arrange for guidance issued or revised to be published in such a manner as he considers appropriate. The guidance issued under this clause will be provided for licensing authorities, but, by providing that it must be publicised, it would be widely available to the police, operators of licensed premises, their legal advisers and the general public. It will be a key mechanism for ensuring consistent application of a licensing regime across England and Wales and for promoting fairness and proportionality. Licensing authorities will be required by the provisions of Clause 4 to have regard to this guidance.
	Perhaps I may briefly turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. A single premises licence can cover all the activities to which the noble Lord refers and it would last for the life of the business involved. Equally, a temporary premises licence can be obtained under Part 3. That licence could be time limited and cover any number of people. However, I look forward to listening to the amendments that he put forward when we reach that stage of the Bill.
	With the assurances that I have given, will the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment and agree that Clause 177 stands part of the Bill?

Lord Norton of Louth: The Minister has made clear that in drawing up the guidance the Secretary of State will consult widely and, indeed, is doing so. Given that, is there any reason why the requirement to consult widely should not itself be incorporated in Clause 177?

Baroness Blackstone: I have already made it clear that this consultation is taking place. I would have thought that that is now on the record and am not clear why we need to amend Clause 177. However, if the noble Lord wants to table an amendment, we can, of course, consider it.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response and I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this relatively brief debate, given its importance. It is connected with the hour and also the fact that throughout Second Reading and in Committee noble Lords have made clear their deep concerns about Clause 177. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting those concerns and responding accordingly.
	We are grateful that in the light of what we have said the Minister seeks to find genuine opportunities for scrutiny. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee has recommended that a mechanism be put in place for debate in both Houses. I am also grateful to the Minister for saying that we might see an early draft of the guidance in January. I thought that we already had one in the framework. Noble Lords on the Bench opposite are shaking their heads, so perhaps we can look forward to something new and different in 2003.
	As my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville said, we shall sleepwalk into trouble if we do not continue to press our concerns with regard to the need for more clarity in the Bill. The Minister expressed concern that if our Amendment No. 91 were accepted the Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament every three years. That is a good idea—I believe that Secretaries of State should come to Parliament more often. It is typical of this Government, who prefer to treat Parliament as something of an irritant.
	There are regulations in other parts of the Bill. I do not mind that the Minister attempts to tease me. I am not teased, because we seek to have more clarity. We believe that certain issues go to the heart of the legislation and that it would be sensible for them to be subject to regulation, which could be properly debated and amended by this House and another place on a three-yearly basis. That is entirely flexible and meets many of the concerns that Members of the Committee have raised previously and today.
	I shall not detain the Committee longer, except to say that detailed preparation is of course required in relation to the drafting of the Bill and the guidance notes. However, it has been two and a half years since the publication of the White Paper and I am afraid that we are rightly becoming somewhat impatient on behalf of all interested parties to the Bill. We wait with bated breath to see the new guidance in draft form in January and to hear—

Baroness Blackstone: I would not want the noble Baroness to be misled. I said that there is a programme of work in January but I did not specify the precise time when we would be able to bring the draft guidance forward. I said that we would be able to do so at some point during the various stages of the Bill in this House.

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. Perhaps I may be so bold as to indicate that I speak with the collective voice of the Chamber when I say that we shall not be content for the Bill to leave this House unless we have had sight of and an opportunity to debate the guidance. We are grateful that so much preparation is taking place and we hope to have the opportunity to review it before it leaves this Chamber.
	There will be another opportunity for another place to scrutinise it, but let us respond to what the Select Committee has recommended and what noble Lords have requested; that is, a genuine opportunity for scrutiny. We would like to see that in this House and we therefore wait to see what the Minister will bring forward in terms of opportunity for scrutiny. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.